Re: DDP restoration plan proposal (medium-term move to Alioth)
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 02:34:37AM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 01:01:19AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 12:25:56AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > > 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).
> >
> > Why are there other items? At this point, service is restored, end
> > of the story. Everything else is a different matter.
>
> Restoring the service is not very difficult, but maybe it's possible to
> improve the old behaviour?
>
> I don't know how many people had access to old DDP CVS but all
> translators depend on CVS write access. There are currently 34 persons
> who contributed to Debian Reference. Add a few translators for other
> projects and you get a number of at least 50 people!
>
Exactly what I said, A so great number of people having access to gluck
is a security nightmare. That can be done on alioth for SGML files only.
Splitting the cvs tree is a requirement. We could move current HEAD
on alioth and remove makefiles/scripts and authorization files.
So we would have history, logs and write access available soon.
Scripting and webpages could follow on gluck.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: