[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DDP restoration plan proposal (medium-term move to Alioth)


I will post my thought too but ...

On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:53:43AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org> writes:
> > Ok, here's my proposal on how should DDP be restored:
> >
> > 1.- Since more than one review has been done of the HEAD branch, restore 
> > the CVS service for the DDP at gluck (without pserver access). 
> This needs to be done quickly.  Can I help expedite it?
> Personally I would have recommended just moving right to alioth, but
> I wasn't around to recommend it.  It would have broken web updates but
> at least we'd be in a situation where authors can do updates.

IMHO, DDP is relatively static.  I am thinking more like that I would
like take this opportunity to clean up DDP while restoring it.

At least consistency of directory names can be gained.

Also considering SGML --> XML move in the future, "manuals.sgml" may be
better called "manuals".  These are simple change.

> > 2.- Send a notice asking for DDP authors/translators to
> > 	a) review the current HEAD branch themselves
> > 	b) commit any changes done to documents that might still be at 
> > 	local copies
> > 	c) tell them that the DDP cvs server will be moved in the short 
> > 	term to Alioth.
> >    This notice should not be sent to -doc, but probably to -i18n and to 
> >    -devel-announce.
> >
> > [This advance notice means that the manuals.sgml/ directory at the DDP 
> > project in Alioth, should _not_ be used until the move is complete]
> Ok.
> > 3.- Work out together with the Debian admins how should klecker update the 
> > DDP pages once the project has moved to Alioth [1]
> I have some ideas about that.  I don't really see why we can't have
> the doc build process run as a low priority user, and install under a
> prefix such as ~luser/tmp/ddp-root .  Then the user which has RW to
> the web will just 'cp -ar' those files into place.
> The proposals to split into 2 CVS areas, one for makefiles, one for
> docs, seems to be utterly unmaintainable.

I actually thought about this.  This was too simplistic in

> > [1] This might mean keeping scripts that run periodically through cron
> > (Makefiles under manuals.sgml + utils/) at a CVS in gluck. Debian-doc
> > members should be responsible for merging the changes done with those files
> > at Alioth (if any)
> I don't understand what you mean about merging here. Does it relate to
> point (4), the move over?
> > 4.- (once 3 is cleared up and after a reasonable time, a month?) Move all
> > the data from gluck to Alioth and disable the data in the CVS there. So 
> > that Alioth holds the canonical copy. Again, notify people at -i18n and 
> > -devel-announce of the move.
> Are you just intending to tar up the repository itself (*,v files) and
> untar them on alioth?  That's the best way to move CVS repositories,

I am making few mock tar right now.

Reply to: