On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 03:48:16AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:40:27PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> > Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a <jfs@computer.org> writes:
> >
> > > Following the instructions post-compromise, and even if a bit late, the
> > > DDP CVS has been checked by different members of the project [1].
> >
> > Does the debian-doc repository have to remain group Debian? We're
> > trying to tie down CVS to unprivileged users and groups. If at all
> > possible, I'd like to restrict this to a group of committers rather
> > than have it open to all 900+ developers. However, if that's what you
> > really want...
>
> Attached is a list of the DD that have contributed to the DDP CVS at some
> point. Please create a debian-doc group with these and restrict the CVS
> with it. Not all of them are active but we can do the filtering later on,
seconded.
> as soon as the CVS is reinstated we will make an announcement with the
> current status and how/when the project will be moved to Alioth.
I see some gap between what we anticipated and what James proposed.
So for the time being:
[1] we keep script and data in gluck for the ddp group DDs as soon
as the CVS is reinstated and
[2] we use alioth as optional CVS for the translator interaction.
I wish I could say "as soon as the CVS is reinstated" but I think
realstically:
"as soon as we figure out agreeable and secure method to build data on
alioth CVS with functional scripts, we will make an announcement with
the current status and how/when the project will be moved to Alioth".
Osamu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature