Re: When and how can we migrate out of CVS and WML ? (Re: How to make Debian more attractive for users)
* Charles Plessy <email@example.com> [2010-07-29 16:53:18 CEST]:
> Le Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:32:54PM +0300, Teemu Likonen a écrit :
> > * 2010-07-23 00:27 (+0900), Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > in my opinion, it is not only a question of design, but of
> > > infrastructure. For me, the combination of CVS and WML finally eroded
> > > all my motivation over the years for keeping some life in the pages
> > > under /devel/debian-med. I would welcome any change of VCS and
> > > language, even if it means losing the history or rewriting the pages
> > > from scratch.
Rewriting everything from scratch would include losing translation
effort which is very huge. I actually don't welcome changes that tell
our translators technicly: "Thanks for your effort so far, but we throw
it all away."
About change of VCS - there are (minor) efforts going on with respect
to try out wether git would work as backend. Any help is of course
appreciated, in any direction. I would welcome any change too, but to
some degree that sentence has the sounding of "if someone else does it"
added to it.
As about moving away from WML: I am open for something that offers us
also the needed flexibility for pulling in automated information and
doesn't put too much burden onto our translators.
Just to give you an idea what I am trying to avoid: the SPI website
changed from CVS + WML years ago, and was well translated at that time.
Go to <http://www.spi-inc.org/> and try to find translated pages. Or
even other updates, the last News item reads 2008, all the resolutions
are gone from the site too.
This is definitely not something that you'll find me appreciate or push
forward. Debian is an international community and wants, no, scratch
that, _needs_ to reach out to people in their native languages.
> > Yes, sometimes it's not enough to send patches to an established
> > project. Indeed starting a different (web) project, possibly with
> > different infrastructure, may be needed if one wants to change things.
I would be really interested in ideas and discussions about possible
different infrastructure. I'm definitely not opposed to change (mind
you, that's why I am working on getting <http://git.deb.at/>,
<http://packages.deb.at/en/> and <http://www.deb.at/index.en.html>
deployed). Please speak up so we can properly discuss things. But please
understand that there is minimum requirements and simply throwing
everything away isn't a good idea.
> Indeed, I am starting to wonder if it would be possible to use redirections or
> aliases to allow a step-by-step transition…
A how big list of redirections and aliases do you have in mind that you
want to have deployed to the mirror network? How many external links are
you willing to intentionally break by what's spinning around in your
> Instead of looking for volunteers to migrate the whole website,
> perhaps we should focus on giving flexibility for people who care
> about a particular branch to use a different system, provided that it
> follows some appearance and translation standards.
Splitting the site into different smaller pieces that all do go their
own approaches, potential all in different directions, won't improve
things IMNSHO, and potential shy away translators for having to follow
several tiny bits.
Or you have something completely different in mind and are just not
able to transport it in your writing - then pretty please try to
rephrase so that I can understand your proposal better.
> Perhaps this discussion should better be continued on firstname.lastname@example.org…
Yes, please let's keep such discussions on here, after all the list is
exactly for that. :)
"Lediglich 11 Prozent der Arbeitgeber sind der Meinung, dass jeder
Mensch auch ein Privatleben haben sollte."