Re: DDP project on Alioth
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 09:35:57AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:21:58AM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > After discussion with Pierre Machard aka migus on IRC, I created a new
> > project 'ddp' on alioth in order to restore by trusted snapshots
> > the no more available documentation repository.
>
> Have you talked with Adam or Joy about this? Last time I looked _they_ were
> the ones that should take this decission.
>
> > The plan is that describe in
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2003/debian-doc-200312/msg00017.html
I thought this is by aph or joy but ... me. Thanks but this is not
meant as final proposal but just a though (but a decent one.)
> That plan has not been approved by all DDP members.
I agree :-) Hey, let's discuss now.
> > In the meantime me and mingus will check archive contents. Helpers
> > are welcome.
Thanks for your initiative.
> I already asked for this and it should have been done _before_ moving the
> DDP project for Alioth. I could only check the latest HEAD branch against
> several HEAD copies (mine included) and all changes looked ok to me, but
> was not able to review all the history for the scripts.
OK, ... but realistically what is the danger to have non-HEAD branch
containing malicious data. If it is script, there may be remote chance
but if it is document itself, I see almost null chance.
> If you check the contents of utils/ (which I haven't) and manuals.sgml
> scripts history then we could contact debian-admin to reenable the CVSROOT
> at gluck:/home/oldgluck/org/cvs.debian.org/cvs/debian-doc.
Let's do it simpler.
1. If someone on DDP is interested to keep history for scripts, let
them come forward. They should tell us timelines of review.
2. Check HEAD contents.
3. If item 1 can be finished within reasonable time like a month, wait
here.
4. If not install known-good-HEAD.
5. If history is verified OK, think about merging changes.
Realistically, 5 can be skipped.
> > I also added some obviuos users to the project, such as joy and aph.
> > If a trustable committers list can be provided to us, it would be fine.
>
> That would be all the list of 'users' in the old CVSRoot. You could also
> gather one based on the history of changes of all the documents. BTW, have
> you contacted the translation teams at all?
He is doing it now. DDP members active are supposed to be reading this
list. It is good way to ping actives.
> If you were interested in restoring the DDP service it should have been
> restored _first_ on gluck, after all the contents have been verified, once
> done, it could have been moved to alioth, but after contacting all the
> parties. This "now it's done" approach, is not the way to do it.
I am practical. I am not pushing this. What is wrong to move to
alioth. It is CVS afterall. Just different hostname.
> Do you have a clear plan on how to have gluck regenerate all the
> documentation in HTML format based on the Alioth sources? Have
> you discussed this with debian-admin@?
Yes, that a goos idea. Ask them to provide tar of CVSROOT. Wait... it
looks like everything has moved. I do not see it on gluck. :-) I
guess Francesco or Pierre relocated it already.
> Also notice that for some users of the DDP, including myself, the history
> is as important as the documents themselves. Please preserve it too.
I understand this but I assume your interest is mostly document SGML.
Am I wrong?
> Note that I'm not particuarly against moving the DDP to Alioth, it's just
> that I don't believe it is a decission to be taken lightly, and should be
> clear on all fronts, that's why I'm hinting to some of the steps you
> have missed. Granted, they should all have been done by now by other
> DDP members (it's almost february) but fixing RC bugs has been a higher
> priority (for me at least).
I agree that this is not a decission to be taken lightly. But I
appreciate initiative and efforts taken by the people who put their
efforts.
You know, having working CVS is better than nothing for DDP.
Osamu
Reply to: