On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 08:21:28PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 10:38:35PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > > 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. > > There are DDP members that are not reading the list. Notably, a number of > translators are probably not subscribed to this list. If they want to keep write access, they should. > > I am practical. I am not pushing this. What is wrong to move to > > alioth. It is CVS afterall. Just different hostname. > > I'm not against moving stuff to Alioth, as I've already said. I'm against > doing it without contacting everyone, also without following the steps > requested by Debian admins: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200312/msg00001.html > (see "When is [my/foo] service coming back(, you [etc.])?" I thought he is doing this now. That is why ddp is not accessible yet. I guess just RSYNCed. Anyway, if you check gluck.debian.org, many old cvs.debian.org has been moved. I spotted webwml missing and found it in alioth.debian.org So I had impression that this is a part of new CVS management for all doc and web related thing. > > > 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. > > ¿? I'm not talking about they providing a tar, I'm talking about how is > www.debian.org/doc going to get updated when the sources are up at Alioth. > Since gluck had both the CVS and the the WWW repository it was trivial to > have a cronjob to run the stuff, I'm not that sure admin's will like to run > scripts in gluck that are extracted from Alioth in a cronjob, that has a > lot of potential for abuse. OK, so "potential for abuse" issue may need to be discussed separately. But that is not with Pierre but you should talk to joy or aph since they are the ones who will be the likely person to run these codes. If your point is true, it is not just ddp but webwml too. > > > 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? > > Yes, the history of scripts is also important. OK. Let's start another thread posing which script will go through what review and their review status. > > 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. > > I appreciate initiative and effort when done properly. This is not being > done properly. Let's not dismiss just because there is some shortcomings. Please point out exactly what is needed and how you work on them. Let's work on things which we can handle first. Gap can be closed later. > > You know, having working CVS is better than nothing for DDP. > > Having a CVS that doesn't get published anywhere defeats the whole purpose > of the DDP. Well at least I disagree with this. Having CVS allow us to update source and update package cooperatively. So I can wait for the publishing to web later. Osamu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature