Re: Debian OCaml Task Force
En réponse à Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:24:10PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Ralf Treinen <treinen@club-internet.fr> writes:
> >
> >
> > > What would be in the cvs ? Only the debian directory ? What about
> > > diffs against upstream ?
> >
> > The whole stuff. And the diff taged differently. BTW, I would
> > like to go for subversion.
>
> Could you give us a (smallish) 'resumé' of the difference between CVS
> and subversion ? I am aware of some, but maybe not everyone is.
Basically, from what I caught:
- it is possible to move files and directories
- atomic accesses
- possibility to revert changes (there is an history)
I know nothing of credentials, if anyone could tell.
> > > In general, I like the idea of co-maintainership. However I think
> > > that there should still be one real person who is the principal
> > > maintainer, and who has some concrete interest in the package.
> > > Otherwise we may end up with a bunch of effectively unmaintained
> > > packages that nooen cares for.
> >
> > You are right: one maintainer and multiple uploaders.
>
> But also multiple people who can work on the packages.
I meant one "Maintainer:" and multiple "Uploaders:", this is
how comaintainership works currently.
> The idea is that this would mean that the project could provide a
> natural framework for sponsoring non-debian developers, a bit like the
> controversial debian-mentor project, and a bit more, since it would be
> a
> shared stuff. Maybe even some upstreams will help a bit if needed and
> such. In the lond run, this could even become some sort of generalized
> ocaml archive, like some are asking on the caml list, but i don't
> think
> this is our goal.
In the case of one single project for all packages, I fear that we'll
have to give too many access to the whole set of package to
not-yet-developers.
--
Jérôme Marant <jerome@marant.org>
<jerome.marant@free.fr>
http://marant.org
Reply to: