Action plan poll for DDP - Debian

This is a discussion on Action plan poll for DDP - Debian ; As I understand (correct me if I am wrong), there are few different opinion on how we run DDP. Please reply to this with your opinion. I will summarize. If you can post your choice or alternative points, I appreciate. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Action plan poll for DDP

  1. Action plan poll for DDP

    As I understand (correct me if I am wrong), there are few different
    opinion on how we run DDP.

    Please reply to this with your opinion. I will summarize.

    If you can post your choice or alternative points, I appreciate.

    1. reactivation method of cvs.debian.org/cvs/debian-doc/
    1-a) Javi: cp -a from /home/oldgluck
    1-b) Osamu and Adam:
    # cd /org/cvs.debian.org/cvs/debian-doc/
    # mkdir debian-doc
    # chgrp Debian debian-doc

    Osamu's request to Javi and others.
    Even if Javi disagree with my *plan* described below, please endorse
    my request to Debian admin since this will also enable you to go your
    route if we agree so. This is simpler action for Debian admin too
    as Adam stated.

    2. activation order
    2-a) Javi: cvs.debian.org first (Am I understood you right?)
    2-b) Osamu: start with anything where we can work on and synch them
    later. (Adam suggested similar too)

    Osamu's question to Javi:
    Do you really want to stop authors to use alioth as their primary CVS?
    If you want to use cvs.debian.org, then use it until you feel
    comfortable using alioth. We can always scp archive from one to other.

    3. reactivation *plan* of cvs.debian.org/cvs/debian-doc/
    3-a) Javi: reactivate as it used to be
    3-b) Osamu: reactivate with updated archive tree (just manuals)

    Action required (Osamu's assessment):
    * One of us will move files according to agreed scheme (I will
    volunteer) after debian-doc is created and create CVSROOT/*

    Osamu's request to Javi and others
    If we do not rename directory now, we will have very messy CVS.
    It is very simple as long as all of us know in advance that the old
    check out does not work. You really do not gain much (1-2 days)
    advantage.

    Build script needs readjustment but it is trivial. (I will fix it).

    But again, if you really insist with good reason, I will agree to stay
    with old archive tree.

    4. directory name of alioth.debian.org CVS
    4-a) Osamu: make it consistent (Denis agreed)
    4-b) ?: keep all directory the same as before

    5. contents of alioth.debian.org CVS
    5-a) Francesco (& Javi?): No script
    5-b) Osamu & Adam: Script included

    Osamu's request to Francesco and others to reconsider.
    Future of DDP in gluck will be just build scripts which are proofed and
    committed only by DD. If we do not have build script, many translation
    will break build process without noticed by the translator and error
    analysis will not be so easy by non-native speaker sometime. (this is
    my experience) ISO vs. UTF-8 encoding error was most time consuming
    build error I encountered. So please ... :-)

    6. what to do next on alioth.debian.org CVS
    6-a) Delete once because confusing after 3 days notice.
    Then discuss.
    6-b) Fix glitches and start using. (Osamu's choice)
    6-c) Replace with oldgluck contents into here as is without
    modification after a week notice.

    Osamu

    PS: I cced kov since he is quiet although he is also a steak holder.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFAIqLV6A/EwagGHzIRAvLAAJ0b4BrgkLFfg4wl2HRHCP1ywGJeUACaAjyM
    M7PdjOvhLCd2pcqgTk028Ms=
    =oW+a
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  2. Re: Action plan poll for DDP

    On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 09:08:53PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
    > As I understand (correct me if I am wrong), there are few different
    > opinion on how we run DDP.
    >
    > Please reply to this with your opinion. I will summarize.


    Sorry, I do not understand your questions, so here are random thoughts.
    IMO there is only a single question: do we want docs be moved to
    Alioth or not? If so, let's go for it, and as links to cvs.debian.org
    will have to be updated on web pages and inside those documents,
    renaming directories at the same time is a very good opportunity.
    Makefiles must be included on Alioth as well so that their maintainers
    can build packages. The directory renaming should have no impact here,
    except for ddp/utils/scripts/common.sh.

    How documents will be build on www-master (or gluck, but I believe it is
    on the former) is out of our control, so why should we wait? You
    proposed a quick-and-dirty (no offense in mind ) solution with 2 CVS
    checkouts, a cleaner one may be found later. This issue is not related
    to CVS location.

    Denis


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: Action plan poll for DDP

    Osamu Aoki writes:

    > As I understand (correct me if I am wrong), there are few different
    > opinion on how we run DDP.
    >
    > Please reply to this with your opinion. I will summarize.
    >
    > If you can post your choice or alternative points, I appreciate.
    >
    > 1. reactivation method of cvs.debian.org/cvs/debian-doc/
    > 1-a) Javi: cp -a from /home/oldgluck
    > 1-b) Osamu and Adam:
    > # cd /org/cvs.debian.org/cvs/debian-doc/
    > # mkdir debian-doc
    > # chgrp Debian debian-doc


    You're mis-categorizing me. Javi's plan to move the files in place is
    1000% better than just making an empty dir. So I'm with (1-a) here.

    > 2. activation order
    > 2-a) Javi: cvs.debian.org first (Am I understood you right?)
    > 2-b) Osamu: start with anything where we can work on and synch them
    > later. (Adam suggested similar too)


    I don't get this? Are you proposing we active both? It *has* to be
    either one or the other -- not both.

    I agree with (2-a), *unless* debian-admin are not responsive; in that
    case I'm willing to fall back to (2-b).

    > Osamu's question to Javi:
    > Do you really want to stop authors to use alioth as their primary CVS?
    > If you want to use cvs.debian.org, then use it until you feel
    > comfortable using alioth. We can always scp archive from one to other.


    No -- ew!

    Only one CVSROOT please!

    Javi's plan, which I agree with (with the caveat above), is to simply
    re-enable cvs.debian.org access for now. Then look at moving over to
    alioth and doing any reworking/redesign for securely updating the web
    pages.

    > 3. reactivation *plan* of cvs.debian.org/cvs/debian-doc/
    > 3-a) Javi: reactivate as it used to be
    > 3-b) Osamu: reactivate with updated archive tree (just manuals)
    >
    > Action required (Osamu's assessment):
    > * One of us will move files according to agreed scheme (I will
    > volunteer) after debian-doc is created and create CVSROOT/*
    >
    > Osamu's request to Javi and others
    > If we do not rename directory now, we will have very messy CVS.
    > It is very simple as long as all of us know in advance that the old
    > check out does not work. You really do not gain much (1-2 days)
    > advantage.
    >
    > Build script needs readjustment but it is trivial. (I will fix it).
    >
    > But again, if you really insist with good reason, I will agree to stay
    > with old archive tree.


    (3-a) -- whatever is faster. We should do any redesign later, once
    authors are able to get started.

    I don't feel strongly on this one. The renaming was indeed pretty
    simple.

    > 4. directory name of alioth.debian.org CVS
    > 4-a) Osamu: make it consistent (Denis agreed)
    > 4-b) ?: keep all directory the same as before
    >
    > 5. contents of alioth.debian.org CVS
    > 5-a) Francesco (& Javi?): No script
    > 5-b) Osamu & Adam: Script included


    I guess I would state this a little differently. I need one CVS
    location for all the files I need to build developers-reference
    package from source.

    > Osamu's request to Francesco and others to reconsider.
    > Future of DDP in gluck will be just build scripts which are proofed and
    > committed only by DD. If we do not have build script, many translation
    > will break build process without noticed by the translator and error
    > analysis will not be so easy by non-native speaker sometime. (this is
    > my experience) ISO vs. UTF-8 encoding error was most time consuming
    > build error I encountered. So please ... :-)



    Yah. No other alternative seems acceptable to me -- far too
    inconvenient for package maintainers.

    > 6. what to do next on alioth.debian.org CVS
    > 6-a) Delete once because confusing after 3 days notice.
    > Then discuss.
    > 6-b) Fix glitches and start using. (Osamu's choice)
    > 6-c) Replace with oldgluck contents into here as is without
    > modification after a week notice.


    I would say (6-a), but disable for now except for owner (rather than
    delete). This should be tied to item (2) above. If we do end up
    starting at alioth rather than gluck, obviously, then I would vote for
    (6-b) I guess.

    > PS: I cced kov since he is quiet although he is also a steak holder.


    I think you mean "stake"

    --
    ......Adam Di Carlo....adam@debian.org.....


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: Action plan poll for DDP

    Thaks for comment.

    One question. What do you think about translators issue and disabled
    pserver issue.

    Here is the back ground of this question.

    On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 05:29:52PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
    > Only one CVSROOT please!


    As I understood the previous discussion by Francesco P. Lovergine and
    Javi, that we will have 2 CVSROOT for security reason.

    Idea is that
    1. We have many translators to which we do not know much.
    2. Giving them full CVS write acess produce situation that they can
    write to Makefile and script.
    3. These maybe run by cron for making web page on gluck.
    4. This means non-DD can run script on gluck if we add them to pserver
    5. Once we close pserver on gluck, we need another tree for translator.

    Then as Francesco said, if we are careful, proofread build scripts on
    cvs.debian.org (gluck) can build web page securely while SGML/XML
    source are write accessible by many people.

    (Francesco actually want to split source put each into different CVS
    tree.)

    Anyway, I need working CVS ASAP. If it does not build web page, I can
    wait.

    We can create web page on alioth too. Then by changing webwml sorces to
    pint to new location, we may have more freedom. (But issue of script
    stays. Maybe we should create another project with fewer people who
    will update these Makefile and script files. Then control write access
    to CVS by using these groups on Alioth.)


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  5. Re: Action plan poll for DDP

    On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 11:01:22PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
    > On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 09:08:53PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
    > > As I understand (correct me if I am wrong), there are few different
    > > opinion on how we run DDP.
    > >
    > > Please reply to this with your opinion. I will summarize.

    >
    > Sorry, I do not understand your questions, so here are random thoughts.
    > IMO there is only a single question: do we want docs be moved to
    > Alioth or not? If so, let's go for it, and as links to cvs.debian.org
    > will have to be updated on web pages and inside those documents,
    > renaming directories at the same time is a very good opportunity.
    > Makefiles must be included on Alioth as well so that their maintainers
    > can build packages. The directory renaming should have no impact here,
    > except for ddp/utils/scripts/common.sh.



    My understanding was this was implicit yes. Question was how and when.

    > How documents will be build on www-master (or gluck, but I believe it is
    > on the former) is out of our control, so why should we wait? You
    > proposed a quick-and-dirty (no offense in mind ) solution with 2 CVS
    > checkouts, a cleaner one may be found later. This issue is not related
    > to CVS location.


    That what I thought. After a second thought, alioth with 2 project and
    shared tree may be cleaner solution.

    Osamu


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  6. Re: Action plan poll for DDP

    Osamu Aoki writes:

    > Thaks for comment.
    >
    > One question. What do you think about translators issue and disabled
    > pserver issue.


    I would suggest we disable pserver for now, and have translators send
    patches to the authors or else this group.

    --
    ......Adam Di Carlo....adam@debian.org.....


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  7. Re: Action plan poll for DDP

    Em Thu, 5 Feb 2004 21:08:53 +0100, Osamu Aoki escreveu:

    > PS: I cced kov since he is quiet although he is also a steak holder.


    Yes, indeed I'm somewhat buried in so many virtual and real life
    projects =/.

    Basically, I think:

    1. I'm in favour of moving to alioth
    - I would like to have a clear separation on what is being
    developed and what is released on the CVS, maybe we
    should have the cvs for development and then migrate
    stuff to the ddp page manually

    2. I am not sure what to do first, I think taking the oportunity
    to do whatever needs to be done the right way may be a good
    option.

    3. I would like to see anything involved with the project into
    the CVS, that means scripts -- if I understand it correctly,
    we're talking about hosting scripts in a cvs repository

    I guess this would be my opinion, too:

    6-b) Fix glitches and start using. (Osamu's choice)

    I'm sorry to not be active, I'm trying to save time to work
    on apt-howto. I'm working on adding a greek translation
    right now and will work on writing more stuff tonight.

    If anyone wants to become co-maintainer (actually,
    co-writers would be welcome) that'd be good. =)

    []s!

    --
    kov@debian.org: Gustavo Noronha
    Debian: *
    "Não deixe para amanhã, o WML que você pode traduzir hoje!"
    http://debian-br.alioth.debian.org/?id=WebWML


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  8. Re: Action plan poll for DDP

    On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 03:06:00PM -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
    > Em Thu, 5 Feb 2004 21:08:53 +0100, Osamu Aoki escreveu:
    >
    > > PS: I cced kov since he is quiet although he is also a steak holder.

    >
    > Yes, indeed I'm somewhat buried in so many virtual and real life
    > projects =/.
    >
    > Basically, I think:
    >
    > 1. I'm in favour of moving to alioth
    > - I would like to have a clear separation on what is being
    > developed and what is released on the CVS, maybe we
    > should have the cvs for development and then migrate
    > stuff to the ddp page manually


    I think you should use "branch" capability of CVS. As long as you stay
    away from HEAD branch, your development version in the CVS will not be
    published. (I now copy development version from other CVS after
    checking their consistency. Once alioth is up, I will change my
    behaviour.)

    Osamu


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  9. Re: Action plan poll for DDP

    Em Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:19:18 +0100, Osamu Aoki escreveu:

    > > 1. I'm in favour of moving to alioth
    > > - I would like to have a clear separation on what is being
    > > developed and what is released on the CVS, maybe we
    > > should have the cvs for development and then migrate
    > > stuff to the ddp page manually

    >
    > I think you should use "branch" capability of CVS. As long as you stay
    > away from HEAD branch, your development version in the CVS will not be
    > published. (I now copy development version from other CVS after
    > checking their consistency. Once alioth is up, I will change my
    > behaviour.)


    Nice idea, Osamu... I didn't know how to use that feature in CVS when
    I started using it for apt-howto and it somehow did not occur to me
    that I could do it 'till now, even after using it elsewhere.

    Guess I need to review the procedures of working on apt-howto.

    []s!

    --
    kov@debian.org: Gustavo Noronha
    Debian: *
    "Não deixe para amanhã, o WML que você pode traduzir hoje!"
    http://debian-br.alioth.debian.org/?id=WebWML


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  10. Re: Action plan poll for DDP

    Gustavo Noronha Silva writes:

    > Em Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:19:18 +0100, Osamu Aoki escreveu:
    >
    >> > 1. I'm in favour of moving to alioth
    >> > - I would like to have a clear separation on what is being
    >> > developed and what is released on the CVS, maybe we
    >> > should have the cvs for development and then migrate
    >> > stuff to the ddp page manually

    >>
    >> I think you should use "branch" capability of CVS. As long as you stay
    >> away from HEAD branch, your development version in the CVS will not be
    >> published. (I now copy development version from other CVS after
    >> checking their consistency. Once alioth is up, I will change my
    >> behaviour.)


    Osamu isn't really clear here. The way CVS works, the development
    copy should be the HEAD and the branch should be for stable versions.
    The mainline where development always must be the HEAD. This is
    especially necessary if you have pretty active development.

    > Nice idea, Osamu... I didn't know how to use that feature in CVS when
    > I started using it for apt-howto and it somehow did not occur to me
    > that I could do it 'till now, even after using it elsewhere.
    >
    > Guess I need to review the procedures of working on apt-howto.


    Personally I find branching to be far too much work. If you simply
    want a way to indicate which version in CVS is the released version,
    you should use CVS tags. This is a widely established practice; e.g.,
    this is how cvs-buildpackage works.

    Unfortunately cvs-buildpackage doesn't provide a tag meaning, "latest
    release". For instance, 'debian_version_latest'. So we'd have to
    come up with such a tag and implement it and get all the authors to
    implement it.

    Frankly I don't think it will ever happen. It's overcomplicated.

    --
    ......Adam Di Carlo....adam@debian.org.....


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  11. Re: Action plan poll for DDP

    Em Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:46:29 -0500, Adam Di Carlo escreveu:

    > >> I think you should use "branch" capability of CVS. As long as you stay
    > >> away from HEAD branch, your development version in the CVS will not be
    > >> published. (I now copy development version from other CVS after
    > >> checking their consistency. Once alioth is up, I will change my
    > >> behaviour.)

    >
    > Osamu isn't really clear here. The way CVS works, the development
    > copy should be the HEAD and the branch should be for stable versions.
    > The mainline where development always must be the HEAD. This is
    > especially necessary if you have pretty active development.


    Indeed. But the way debian-doc's stuff was handled, AFAIK, HEAD was
    built automatically for the main page.

    > Personally I find branching to be far too much work. If you simply
    > want a way to indicate which version in CVS is the released version,
    > you should use CVS tags. This is a widely established practice; e.g.,
    > this is how cvs-buildpackage works.


    Cool for me, too. But I'd still prefer having something like a place
    to upload releases or someway to say which tag is used as 'release'.

    > Unfortunately cvs-buildpackage doesn't provide a tag meaning, "latest
    > release". For instance, 'debian_version_latest'. So we'd have to
    > come up with such a tag and implement it and get all the authors to
    > implement it.


    That would be good, but would that mean untagging the previous
    last version before that?

    Thanks!

    --
    kov@debian.org: Gustavo Noronha
    Debian: *
    "Não deixe para amanhã, o WML que você pode traduzir hoje!"
    http://debian-br.alioth.debian.org/?id=WebWML


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread