[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Localizing main site?

Ar 18/06/2005 am 13:56, ysgrifennodd Jutta Wrage:
> Am 18.06.2005 um 04:37 schrieb Clytie Siddall:
> > Thanks for the link. It does look pretty complex for me now (the  
> > sort of thing I would have enjoyed very much before becoming ill),  
> > and they don't seem to have any notes for Mac OSX 10.4, which is a  
> > major update.
> The main problem about arch and tla/bazaar is that they work with  
> distributed repositories instead of one central. They solve problems,  
> debian-women does not have. For a central project like debian-women  
> website and www.d.o one central repository is the best, I think. That  
> is why the arch system to choose should have been discussed before  
> just acting.

I don't understand -- Debian Women is using Arch in a centralised manner with
a shared repository. This does not necessitate setting up your own archive or
understanding the distributed capabilities of Arch.

As Erinn pointed out, checking out, updating a copy, and committing are all
comparable with similar operations in CVS or SVN.

> To OSX and Fink: Fink is sometimes out of date a lot. I do not use it  
> any longer, moved to Darwinports (.org) after installing my new  
> notebook.
> But to build the pages to upload them to alioth, you need some more  
> things:
> local wml installation
> local build of the pages
> checking if someone else has uploaded a different version and try to  
> syncronizize all the distributed archive as often as possible. Else  
> it may happen, that one upload juste deletes, what another person has  
> made before.

Again, there is no more distributed behaviour than you get with CVS. If
somebody commits to CVS between when you check out and when you commit, you
can get a conflict.

The WML system is powerful and flexible, and the price paid for this is that
it is more complicated. I think it is a reasonable compromise for the benefits
it provides such as facilitating translations.

> How it works with the main debie pages (www.debian.org)
> - central repository and central build of the pages.
> - translators have ther checked out working version and can make a  
> local build, for testing purposes, if they want (did that a lot for  
> www.d.o).
> - those who have cvs commit access can check in changes directly and  
> others can deliver patches to www.d.o.
> All this makes sure, that there is only one version of the debian  
> pages on all mirrors after build and mirror update.

This seems similar to what DW is using to me. You can check out the website,
do a local build, commit if you have access, and generate patches otherwise.

> As nearly all larger projects, many people are working on, use either  
> CVS or the newer SVN, it makes a lot of sense to learn one of them or  
> both. If you just want to checkout, make changes and deliver patches  
> to someone else, there is not very much to learn.
> Using SVN has the advantage, that it works over http, and will pass  
> firewalls, no need to open an additional port.

Arch also works over HTTP.

Having said all of that, I wholeheartedly agree that Bazaar has usability
problems, particularly when things go wrong.[0] But given that

 - DW is using it in a simplified method of operation,
 - there are a number of people on IRC and the mailing list who are
   experienced with it and are happy to help people use it,
 - and that those people are also happy to commit work on others' behalf if
   those others don't want to or can't use Bazaar

I  think that there should be no problem.

[0] I have also witnessed it steadily improving its ease of use since its
    inception, and have high hopes for this trend continuing in future.


Reply to: