Re: Action plan poll for DDP
Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> writes:
> As I understand (correct me if I am wrong), there are few different
> opinion on how we run DDP.
>
> Please reply to this with your opinion. I will summarize.
>
> If you can post your choice or alternative points, I appreciate.
>
> 1. reactivation method of cvs.debian.org/cvs/debian-doc/
> 1-a) Javi: cp -a from /home/oldgluck
> 1-b) Osamu and Adam:
> # cd /org/cvs.debian.org/cvs/debian-doc/
> # mkdir debian-doc
> # chgrp Debian debian-doc
You're mis-categorizing me. Javi's plan to move the files in place is
1000% better than just making an empty dir. So I'm with (1-a) here.
> 2. activation order
> 2-a) Javi: cvs.debian.org first (Am I understood you right?)
> 2-b) Osamu: start with anything where we can work on and synch them
> later. (Adam suggested similar too)
I don't get this? Are you proposing we active both? It *has* to be
either one or the other -- not both.
I agree with (2-a), *unless* debian-admin are not responsive; in that
case I'm willing to fall back to (2-b).
> Osamu's question to Javi:
> Do you really want to stop authors to use alioth as their primary CVS?
> If you want to use cvs.debian.org, then use it until you feel
> comfortable using alioth. We can always scp archive from one to other.
No -- ew!
Only one CVSROOT please!
Javi's plan, which I agree with (with the caveat above), is to simply
re-enable cvs.debian.org access for now. Then look at moving over to
alioth and doing any reworking/redesign for securely updating the web
pages.
> 3. reactivation *plan* of cvs.debian.org/cvs/debian-doc/
> 3-a) Javi: reactivate as it used to be
> 3-b) Osamu: reactivate with updated archive tree (just manuals)
>
> Action required (Osamu's assessment):
> * One of us will move files according to agreed scheme (I will
> volunteer) after debian-doc is created and create CVSROOT/*
>
> Osamu's request to Javi and others
> If we do not rename directory now, we will have very messy CVS.
> It is very simple as long as all of us know in advance that the old
> check out does not work. You really do not gain much (1-2 days)
> advantage.
>
> Build script needs readjustment but it is trivial. (I will fix it).
>
> But again, if you really insist with good reason, I will agree to stay
> with old archive tree.
(3-a) -- whatever is faster. We should do any redesign later, once
authors are able to get started.
I don't feel strongly on this one. The renaming was indeed pretty
simple.
> 4. directory name of alioth.debian.org CVS
> 4-a) Osamu: make it consistent (Denis agreed)
> 4-b) ?: keep all directory the same as before
>
> 5. contents of alioth.debian.org CVS
> 5-a) Francesco (& Javi?): No script
> 5-b) Osamu & Adam: Script included
I guess I would state this a little differently. I need one CVS
location for all the files I need to build developers-reference
package from source.
> Osamu's request to Francesco and others to reconsider.
> Future of DDP in gluck will be just build scripts which are proofed and
> committed only by DD. If we do not have build script, many translation
> will break build process without noticed by the translator and error
> analysis will not be so easy by non-native speaker sometime. (this is
> my experience) ISO vs. UTF-8 encoding error was most time consuming
> build error I encountered. So please ... :-)
Yah. No other alternative seems acceptable to me -- far too
inconvenient for package maintainers.
> 6. what to do next on alioth.debian.org CVS
> 6-a) Delete once because confusing after 3 days notice.
> Then discuss.
> 6-b) Fix glitches and start using. (Osamu's choice)
> 6-c) Replace with oldgluck contents into here as is without
> modification after a week notice.
I would say (6-a), but disable for now except for owner (rather than
delete). This should be tied to item (2) above. If we do end up
starting at alioth rather than gluck, obviously, then I would vote for
(6-b) I guess.
> PS: I cced kov since he is quiet although he is also a steak holder.
I think you mean "stake" :)
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@debian.org.....<URL:http://www.debian.org/>
Reply to: