On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:10:56PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > They are both PMs for the project currently. They are probably too busy > with other tasks currently to deal with the restoration of DDP. I saw > multiple queries about the status of the rep on IRC, this list and other > ones. That's just a way to have things moving on. It's not the proper way, the people in charge of the DDP should do that. If they don't then they should be discharged of that job. Manually adding them as "Project Managers" is really irrelevant, you should have discussed the move with _them_ at the very least. > Is there any formal way for having that approvation? Creating the > repository is just a starting point not the final goal, anyway. Yes, the approvation should have been given by those appointed as the project leaders. > BTW, I saw no objections to the plan in the last couple of months: > that message is dated 12/9 and there is very few activity > in this list since the intrusion days. Maybe, nobody cares enough. December was a busy month. Many DDs were away on vacation. People do care. Also, I didn't hear you step out when the same date, I asked for help to restore the service (Message-ID: <20031209212214.GA13101@dat.etsit.upm.es>). Why did you chose to go your own way when you knew people were working (albeit slowly) on restoring the service? > > 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. > > > > I have both them in my checkouts. I do too, and, as I said, the HEAD branch is ok. > > 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 know. Again, theory and practice are different things. I'm just seeing > that things are stopped since a couple of months. If someone could help, > why not? Because forcing others to work using Alioth is not the way to do it, unless everyone has agreed on it. Your "help" has not been on reviewing the CVS contents and contacting -admin, which I did ask for. > > 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@? > > > > Not yet. But it's technically possible. _Everythin_ is technically possible. That's not the point. The point is that there is really no use having a CVS of documentation that doesn't get automatically published at w.d.o/doc, that's the point. Again, a flawed plan. I'm not against moving the DDP to Alioth, I'm against how you've done it, without consulting, without consensus, and without an idea of who could it impact, who should be contacted, and what steps need to be taken to really restore the DDP proyect as a whole (which is not just the CVS, w.d.o/doc is also a part of it, as the package maintainers making packages of the CVS are) Regards Javi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature