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

Re: Alternative plan for DDP


Before going further, I have to correct my previous statement:

webwml : This has entry in alioth, there is nothing in here.  So they
are operating only in cvs.debian.org under gluck.

On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 10:03:41AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > The point is not considering alioth cvs more trustable than needed.
> > > That's also my concern about having scripts cvs mantained on alioth,
> > > of course.
> > 
> > If you read scripts used to make nice PDF for Chinese, Polish, ... in
> > Debian Reference, you see that this was done by non-DD.  I can judge
> > this will not do nasty thing but building these script was beyond my
> > ability and I relyed on Jens (a non-DD) to do this.  The only way to
> > effectively communicate with him was through CVS.  So I insist to have
> > all contents in Alioth.  Otherwise building these in many language is
> > impossible.  debiandocsgml2* script is not perfect yet.
> > 
> Ok, but as Javi also said, having 2 CVSes for the same thing (scripts)
> is evil. So we would have all stuff on Alioth and move scripts
> (after auditing by DDs eyes) to gluck when needed. 
> Proposal:
> A nice script could be written to checksum scripts and create a
> signable list of trustable scripts on alioth. 

I thought about this route.  But where and what permission to use to
store them.  And where you keep these scripts.  If these script are to
be kept in the CVS archive, this should be a group/project with 
fewer member.

> Then, another script on gluck could import only  files in that list
> after proper checking.  One of the PMs could so sign the list when all
> its files had been checked.  This could ensure that only coherent and
> trustable scripts are used on gluck, and could avoid error-prone
> human-based copies.

If you can make simple and clean script to all these without any
compication, that will be nice.  But until then, 2 CVSROOT is the only
simple and sure solution.  I am open for this fancy scheme if I see the
working solution.

Reply to: