Re: Switching from CVS to something else
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:11:33PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > > I agree that moving the documentation CVS over to Alioth will have one
> > > advantage (adding users, no need for DSA to get involved) but I don't really
> > > see the advantage of switching to a different VCS for the DDP's repository.
> >
> > After some thought, I agree. Just moving to CVS to new CVS is best.
>
> Ok, then I should be able to planifiy that.
>
> First of all, do we want to keep the "unix group name" of "cvs_doc" on
> Alioth or should we create a new "ddp" project that I would populate with
> the same members?
>
> http://alioth.debian.org/projects/cvs_doc
It is already there. I created project and stalled as I posted before.
http://alioth.debian.org/plugins/scmcvs/cvsweb.php/?cvsroot=ddp
I have set the old copy of CVS archive to be read only to avoid people
using it accidentaly. Yes, making CVS copt does not take geneous to do
it.
(I am curious how to replace one subsection of CVS tree from another
one while keeping log correct.)
> > Then each section (like apt-howto) can chose different VCS as long as we
> > have control over build script. That is what we lack now. We only
> > offer Makefile but its execution and copying to the web is done by
> > non-DDP resources.
>
> Yes, it's done on www-master AFAIK and thus the people who have access to
> it are the members of the debwww group:
> $ getent group debwww
> debwww:x:10803:csmall,treacy,archvsync,evo,mendoza,kraai,joy,djpig,joey
Let's see how the web page building infrastructure discussion ends on
debian-www. Joey Hess and I were thinking the same thing while Joey
stated the standard POV from the debwww.
For DDP, joy was always a person controlong this build aspect.
Osamu
Reply to: