Re: Debian OCaml Task Force
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:41:02PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> 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.
That said, i doubt we would put very critical stuff in it, all code
would be replicated somewhere else, so i think we can try it. Maybe
making regular backups or soemthing such, but i don't know if alioth can
do this.
> > > > 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.
But you don't count the people who can help, but are no DD, do you ?
These can be maintainers, but not uploaders.
> > 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.
And, what would be the problem ? If we can easily revert changes, they
can do no permanent harm.
The maintainer/uploader would have to check the changes before uploading
a package though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: