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

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



On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 07:21:30AM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Immediate is alioth. (Practically done)

Please DONT have two CVS enabled at the same time, if you want an 
alternative plan to restore the service please detail it and do _not_ do 
things on your own others might not agree with.

I, for one, do _NOT_ want to have the manuals I commit to restored on
Alioth at the moment. Since I first want to see the service at gluck
restored, an update done on the website and will then consider moving to a
place where updates are not yet done for.

You wish to move each manual, fine, ask for permission to each and every
document maintainer for that manual, as listed in the DDP pages. Just like
Adam has done recently. As I said before, many (most?) of the document
maintainers + translators might not read this list.

You could also take the chance to ask them if they are going to update the 
document and are indeed interested in maintaining them, wether they are 
willing to make a move to Docbook-XML, wether they are ok with the Alioth 
move, etc.

> gluck requires Debian admin to create directory debian-doc.

No, gluck requires Debian admin moving a full directory, as is, to the 
previous location. It's really nothing more than an 'mv' command + verify 
that klecker cronjob is still active, which will have to wait until that 
system is up [1] (which it looks like it is now BTS)

> alioth is usable although I need consensus on my choice of directory
> name before I can diclare it is up.  (Hmmm... I can move directory later
> too.  But I will check this list in few days for the responses)

manuals/ is fine by me, but, again, it should be noted as part of the 
instructions given to authors that will need to change their CVS/ROOT and 
CVS/Entries file in their local CVS copies.

Regards

Javi


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-news/debian-news-2004/msg00005.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: