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

Re: Plan for DDP


Anyway, let's push debian-admin to activate DDP on gluck ASAP, while we
start working on DDP infrastructure on alioth.  So phase 1 from 22nd?

Can we agree on this?

I made detailed responses to all issues discussed below:

On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:52:57AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:37:18AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:12:05AM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > And it's not necessarily the _development_ CVS, stable documents which are 
> > > > updated from time to time (once a month? typo fixes? new
> > > > translations?) are also published using the same mechanism.

If we have enough resources on CPU, daily build like what we used to
have is "nice to have".  If that is difficult now, we can settle for
something like manual build or monthly CRON.

> > > Mmm, probably we should consider the same sort of maintainance we have
> > > for point releases in stable (and so branching cvs whenever needed). 
> > [...]

There were documentation point release issues which were totally
different subject from the web page update frequency issue.  Current
point release policy does not allow update of documentation *.deb
package in the stable distribution.  This is because these updates are
not "security" issue nor severe "usability" issue.  It was considered to
be just minor updates to fix glitches by the RM.

Javi, and I too, had great doubts on this pedantic rule about "stable
point release" since it has no real benefit while enforcing to release
known bad documents just to satisfy the letter of the release policy.

So the best stable user can do is to use extensive use of APT system to
get packages from unstable or use web to get documents from the normal
web page section.

> > No, AFAICT Javier calls these documents 'stable' by contrast with CVS
> > versions because they are extracted from released Debian packages, but
> > taken from unstable.  So these documents are most certainly snapshots
> > at a given date, no need for branching there.
> > I do not understand why he mentions these documents, they are currently
> > updated because they are not correlated to the DDP CVS.

This is true to some extent.  But Javi concern is legitimate considering
stable point release issues. (I hope I remembered all right.)

> In fact I remember two different urls for stable and development 
> documents. 

Yes there are:
 http://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals on DDP lists
  which is (or used to be) build from DDP CVS

 http://www.debian.org/devel/ on developer's corner list

Second one seems to be the one from package and I assumed this being 
manually installed.

> Anyway what I mean is branching for stable-related and
> sid-related docs. 

This kind of distribution specific documentation is for installmanual
and releasenotes.  They go like:

  http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/installmanual  (Not available
  now.  But it was available in the late potato=stable days.)
> Having a 2-years or more life cycle for stable,
> we could surely consider point releases for docs (to correct
> typos and integrate incomplete documentations, translations). 

It was continuous build for normal DDP page.  This made it easy to fix
problem if something break.

> Branching is the most correct way to deal with this management.
> And doc updates are also considerable for stable-updates.

I think if the author intends to make changes to break build process or
to interfere with usability of document, he just have to make sure to
stay away from HEAD branch.

By the way, Francesco, we may want to raise documentation update issues
during stable point release, once the dust settles over DDP.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: