Plan for DDP - Debian

This is a discussion on Plan for DDP - Debian ; Hi, After hearing many opinions and rethinking, I thought about somewhat agreeable plan for everyone participated in this discussion. I hope this is clear enough. Basic concept: * Gradual move to alioth.debian.org from gluck.debian.org * Give as much freedom to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Plan for DDP

  1. Plan for DDP

    Hi,

    After hearing many opinions and rethinking, I thought about somewhat
    agreeable plan for everyone participated in this discussion.

    I hope this is clear enough.

    Basic concept:
    * Gradual move to alioth.debian.org from gluck.debian.org
    * Give as much freedom to each owner of tree.
    * Transition without any service interruption
    * No 2 CVSROOTs required to track DDP (per project basis)
    * Single directory per project. (No funny split archive.)
    * Minimum red tape due to admin activity.

    * DDP restoration (initial)
    Restore DDP as it used to be at cvs.debian.org (gluck) without pserver
    as soon as Debian admin enable it. This will be the official DDP CVS.

    * manpages tree

    This has already moved activity to alioth.debian.org (quantz) and it
    should stay there. Currently no script run for this tree thus no issue.

    > Q: What to do with manpages tree at cvs.debian.org (gluck)


    * manuals.sgml/* activities

    I envision multi-phase gradual move. Every phase change requires at
    least 1 week advanced notice on ML.

    ===== Phase 1 =====

    * cvs.debian.org (gluck)
    The cvs.debian.org (gluck) will be updated by the DDs as soon as it is
    available to DD. This is the official DDP CVS. The lack of reactivation
    by the Debian admin will not stop following action.

    The build script in each subdirectory needs to be reviewed for secure
    building of web pages.

    * alioth.debian.org (quantz)
    At this phase, this is optional service to DDP manual author community.

    Since some tree owners (like me) who gets frequent translation updates
    needs alioth.debian.org type cvs environment to continue activity with
    the translators, we will allow them to open CVS tree under
    /cvsroot/ddp/ddp/manuals/ at alioth.debian.org now.

    The new name of directory in alioth will match with the main web page
    starting directory name for the consistency.

    For those trees which the owner does not participate in alioth will have
    empty contents. The directory may be created manually by other PM other
    than the owner. (Those owner who feel strong may place a directory
    named "DO_NOT_USE_THIS" or similar to indicate his intents.)

    For those trees which the owner activates cvs in alioth will have
    RCS files copied from old DDP or other sources which the owner (PM)
    deems most secure and clean. This is done by scp/tar.

    Whoever is the owner of these active trees in alioth is responsible for
    updating gluck side of tree.

    If some script for the secure maintenance of archives are written, they
    should be put under /cvsroot/ddp/ddp/utils/script/*

    Proposed security infrastructure includes but not limited to:
    * MD5sum+GPG signature type file verification scheme for executable
    files.
    * CVS commit access control script via /CVSROOT/commitinfo ALL

    Also /cvsroot/ddp/ddp/Makefile needs to be updated to be secure.

    ===== Phase 2 =====

    When the alioth gains build infrastructure with agreeable security
    fixes, and all sources are reviewed for the secure building in gluck or
    elsewhere, announcement of Phase 2 readiness will be made.

    All RCS files of all trees will be made available on alioth (If needed
    copied from gluck by the owner. If owner does not copy them within a
    week, then other PM will copy them.) At this phase these trees copied
    from gluck shall be read only (i.e. disable group write access to the
    directory).

    ===== Phase 3 =====

    Request admin to redirect CVSROOT to alioth side.
    Wait for the admin to change cvs checkout script.

    Fix build glitches if needed.

    If the owner of tree chose to use gluck cvs as upstream, he can keep
    doing so up until now.

    ===== Phase 4 =====

    As soon as the admin changes cvs checkout script to pint to alioth CVS,
    someone make announcement of freeze of cvs on gluck side. (We must wait
    for admin action to move to this phase.)

    Within a week, each owner shall copy latest RCS files from gluck to
    alioth and set their directories as group writable by ddp group.
    (This means removing old read only directories and their contents.)

    If owner does not copy them within a week, then other PM will perform
    this transition task. After this announce the success of transition.

    At this time, alioth.debian.org (quantz) becomes official CVS for DDP.

    Fix build glitches if needed.

    After a month or so, we can ask admin to do rm -rf all CVS files on
    gluck.

    Osamu

    NB: alioth is short for alioth.debian.org hosted at quantz
    gluck is short for gluck.debian.org and this host cvs.debian.org
    which used to host DDP CVS. Now DDP CVS is moved to /home/oldgluck.
    The "tree" means each unit directory tree such as "apt-howto",
    "developers-reference", "debian-reference" or
    "securing-debian-howto".

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

    iD8DBQFAJPSY6A/EwagGHzIRAsZHAJ9eM5u35OlvbRjdt8BZmXK/9KDzWQCfQ50A
    CS7Uw5LcaeFUEpDlVmb1LcY=
    =FkkG
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  2. Re: Plan for DDP


    What's going on with gluck and debian-admin? Are they being
    unresponsive? Has someone tried pinging them in IRC? Should we go for
    a fallback plan of moving stuff to alioth, if we can't raise their
    attention?

    --
    ......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

  3. Re: Plan for DDP

    On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 01:10:36PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
    >
    > What's going on with gluck and debian-admin? Are they being
    > unresponsive? Has someone tried pinging them in IRC? Should we go for
    > a fallback plan of moving stuff to alioth, if we can't raise their
    > attention?
    >


    Ack by James Troup just a few moments ago:

    make a decision and someone (not a whole bunch of people with
    different ideas) needs to come with -admin with an agreed upon plan
    (yes, I should have mailed that to -doc, it's on my TODO list)

    So, could we consider Osamu's plan as final one?
    Exceptions, comments, ideas?


    --
    Francesco P. Lovergine


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

  4. Re: Plan for DDP

    Francesco Paolo Lovergine writes:

    > Ack by James Troup just a few moments ago:
    >
    > make a decision and someone (not a whole bunch of people with
    > different ideas) needs to come with -admin with an agreed upon plan
    > (yes, I should have mailed that to -doc, it's on my TODO list)
    >
    > So, could we consider Osamu's plan as final one?
    > Exceptions, comments, ideas?


    Yes, lets do it. I have no objections at all.

    --
    ......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

  5. Re: Plan for DDP

    Hi,

    On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 12:20:43PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
    > Francesco Paolo Lovergine writes:
    >
    > > Ack by James Troup just a few moments ago:
    > >
    > > make a decision and someone (not a whole bunch of people with
    > > different ideas) needs to come with -admin with an agreed upon plan
    > > (yes, I should have mailed that to -doc, it's on my TODO list)
    > >
    > > So, could we consider Osamu's plan as final one?
    > > Exceptions, comments, ideas?

    >
    > Yes, lets do it. I have no objections at all.


    Yes, as for reactivating CVS as it used to be, Javi was for it. So I do
    not think any objections to it from anyone. Let's ask admin in the
    unified voice.

    For other things, there may still be some minor disagreement. I do not
    want to rush. Please read it carefully. Let's wait a bit. Let me
    propose time line: Sat Feb 14 12:00:00 UT 2004. If no other voice is
    raised, we move to phase 1 in my proposal.

    I will start to remove contents from CVS ddp/ddp/* unless tree owner
    declares otherwise. I for one want to move CVS from SF.NET. So you
    will expect new CVS contents after that day. (I am at FOSDEM so actual
    actin may be later.)

    Osamu


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

    iD8DBQFALAHQ6A/EwagGHzIRAoO8AJ9uagE0UNLi7wmGMMBdaG5mmA9tDQCfQYGz
    JYHno+TI6JBO/EYnfLlIyso=
    =ahY4
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  6. Re: Plan for DDP

    On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 08:06:04PM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
    > On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 01:10:36PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
    > >
    > > What's going on with gluck and debian-admin? Are they being
    > > unresponsive? Has someone tried pinging them in IRC? Should we go for
    > > a fallback plan of moving stuff to alioth, if we can't raise their
    > > attention?
    > >

    >
    > Ack by James Troup just a few moments ago:
    >
    > make a decision and someone (not a whole bunch of people with
    > different ideas) needs to come with -admin with an agreed upon plan
    > (yes, I should have mailed that to -doc, it's on my TODO list)


    Obviously, Osamu should not had mailed -admin if he had concerns, he should
    have voiced them in -doc only. I'm starting to think it was a bad move to
    CC: -doc at all, since the generated noise was useless and only generated
    useless concers at -admin

    > So, could we consider Osamu's plan as final one?
    > Exceptions, comments, ideas?


    Debian-admin does not care about our "plan" once the CVS is reinstated we
    can do as we see fit, I just asked them for opinions on the Alioth move but
    was not proposing making it effective inmediately after the CVS move (as
    Osamu suggests). If Osamu hadn't jumped in the mail the CVS would have been
    enabled by now.

    That being said, why doesn't _everybody_ ask-pretty-please debian-admin to
    restore the CVS (and the cronjob) as it was and _then_ we can keep on
    discussing on how to do other stuff?. At least we would, at that point, be
    able to update the contents and produce new information in w.d.o.

    Regards

    Javi

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

    iD8DBQFALPzzsandgtyBSwkRArBOAJ4x4rwNKKi+ZCmKCtsFcR adcw+W2wCgg1Gc
    8TPl87ZLy/E/a/D5FIVVHP8=
    =yvl/
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  7. Re: Plan for DDP

    On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 01:10:36PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
    >
    > What's going on with gluck and debian-admin? Are they being
    > unresponsive?


    Yes.

    > Has someone tried pinging them in IRC?


    I've tried, but I'm in a different timezone.

    > Should we go for
    > a fallback plan of moving stuff to alioth, if we can't raise their
    > attention?


    If we can't raise their attention we have others issues than were the
    CVS is up at. Since they _also_ have to reinstate the cronjob at klecker.

    Regards

    Javi

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

    iD8DBQFALP1hsandgtyBSwkRAgs4AKCFLannGMlzxN2pddPwLb Fox3fH/wCePiSH
    GIHFPNX/d0xc7LKF8ifXDAE=
    =2Tlq
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  8. Re: Plan for DDP

    Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña writes:

    > If we can't raise their attention we have others issues than were the
    > CVS is up at. Since they _also_ have to reinstate the cronjob at klecker.


    Surely that's a lower-priority issue and anyhow can't function until
    CVS is back?

    --
    ....Adam Di Carlo..........


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

  9. Re: Plan for DDP

    On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 01:13:54PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
    > Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña writes:
    >
    > > If we can't raise their attention we have others issues than were the
    > > CVS is up at. Since they _also_ have to reinstate the cronjob at klecker.

    >
    > Surely that's a lower-priority issue and anyhow can't function until
    > CVS is back?


    Sincerely, I do not understand at all the need to have an weekly
    html edition of the development cvs, but probably it's my failure.

    --
    Francesco P. Lovergine


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

  10. Re: Plan for DDP

    On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:14:02PM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
    >
    > Sincerely, I do not understand at all the need to have an weekly
    > html edition of the development cvs, but probably it's my failure.


    1.- Some of the documents are _only_ published in htlm form.
    2.- Users running stable cannot retrieve the latest version of the
    documents installing new packages. Also, packages with documents might not
    contain translations in some languages.
    3.- The website is the only place were all documentation is published, it's
    not available in the FTP mirrors, even.

    And it's not necessarily the _development_ CVS, stable documents which are
    updated from time to time (once a month? typo fixes? new translations?) are
    also published using the same mechanism.

    That's why I value the CVS to html transition so much. For some users, it's
    the only contact they really have with some of the documentation
    that Debian produces.

    Regards

    Javi

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

    iD8DBQFALpAMsandgtyBSwkRApkBAJ4qIua3dqt/3JxQzu/zxmnRcFFcvwCdGhi1
    DzCgnSRhJ1xaVm4qG5dJNKA=
    =9RRk
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  11. Re: Plan for DDP

    On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 10:15:56PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
    > On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:14:02PM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
    > >
    > > Sincerely, I do not understand at all the need to have an weekly
    > > html edition of the development cvs, but probably it's my failure.

    >
    > 1.- Some of the documents are _only_ published in htlm form.


    So they are already published in the cvs

    > 2.- Users running stable cannot retrieve the latest version of the
    > documents installing new packages. Also, packages with documents might not
    > contain translations in some languages.


    True, but hopefully documents should generally be up-to-date in respect to
    unstable, not stable, that's quite confusing for naive users.

    > 3.- The website is the only place were all documentation is published, it's
    > not available in the FTP mirrors, even.
    >
    > And it's not necessarily the _development_ CVS, stable documents which are
    > updated from time to time (once a month? typo fixes? new translations?) are
    > also published using the same mechanism.
    >


    Mmm, probably we should consider the same sort of maintainance we have
    for point releases in stable (and so branching cvs whenever needed).
    Anyway, sure: at the current state we have not a better management, so having
    up-to-date docs is a requirement.

    > That's why I value the CVS to html transition so much. For some users, it's
    > the only contact they really have with some of the documentation
    > that Debian produces.
    >


    Ok, I was a bit biased by developers point of view.

    --
    Francesco P. Lovergine


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

  12. Re: Plan for DDP

    On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:12:05AM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
    [...]
    > > And it's not necessarily the _development_ CVS, stable documents which are
    > > updated from time to time (once a month? typo fixes? new translations?) are
    > > also published using the same mechanism.

    >
    > Mmm, probably we should consider the same sort of maintainance we have
    > for point releases in stable (and so branching cvs whenever needed).

    [...]

    No, AFAICT Javier calls these documents 'stable' by contrast with CVS
    versions because they are extracted from released Debian packages, but
    taken from unstable. So these documents are most certainly snapshots
    at a given date, no need for branching there.
    I do not understand why he mentions these documents, they are currently
    updated because they are not correlated to the DDP CVS.

    Denis


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

  13. Re: Plan for DDP

    On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:37:18AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
    > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:12:05AM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
    > [...]
    > > > And it's not necessarily the _development_ CVS, stable documents which are
    > > > updated from time to time (once a month? typo fixes? new translations?) are
    > > > also published using the same mechanism.

    > >
    > > Mmm, probably we should consider the same sort of maintainance we have
    > > for point releases in stable (and so branching cvs whenever needed).

    > [...]
    >
    > No, AFAICT Javier calls these documents 'stable' by contrast with CVS
    > versions because they are extracted from released Debian packages, but
    > taken from unstable. So these documents are most certainly snapshots
    > at a given date, no need for branching there.
    > I do not understand why he mentions these documents, they are currently
    > updated because they are not correlated to the DDP CVS.
    >


    In fact I remember two different urls for stable and development
    documents. Anyway what I mean is branching for stable-related and
    sid-related docs. Having a 2-years or more life cycle for stable,
    we could surely consider point releases for ducs (to correct
    typos and integrate incomplete documentations, translations).
    Branching is the most correct way to deal with this management.
    And doc updates are also considerable for stable-updates.

    --
    Francesco P. Lovergine


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

  14. Re: Plan for DDP

    Hi,

    Anyway, let's push debian-admin to activate DDP on gluck ASAP, while we
    start working on DDP infrastructure on alioth. So phase 1 from 22nd?

    Can we agree on this?

    I made detailed responses to all issues discussed below:

    On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:52:57AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
    > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:37:18AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
    > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:12:05AM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
    > > [...]
    > > > > And it's not necessarily the _development_ CVS, stable documents which are
    > > > > updated from time to time (once a month? typo fixes? new
    > > > > translations?) are also published using the same mechanism.


    If we have enough resources on CPU, daily build like what we used to
    have is "nice to have". If that is difficult now, we can settle for
    something like manual build or monthly CRON.

    > > > Mmm, probably we should consider the same sort of maintainance we have
    > > > for point releases in stable (and so branching cvs whenever needed).

    > > [...]


    There were documentation point release issues which were totally
    different subject from the web page update frequency issue. Current
    point release policy does not allow update of documentation *.deb
    package in the stable distribution. This is because these updates are
    not "security" issue nor severe "usability" issue. It was considered to
    be just minor updates to fix glitches by the RM.

    Javi, and I too, had great doubts on this pedantic rule about "stable
    point release" since it has no real benefit while enforcing to release
    known bad documents just to satisfy the letter of the release policy.

    So the best stable user can do is to use extensive use of APT system to
    get packages from unstable or use web to get documents from the normal
    web page section.

    > > No, AFAICT Javier calls these documents 'stable' by contrast with CVS
    > > versions because they are extracted from released Debian packages, but
    > > taken from unstable. So these documents are most certainly snapshots
    > > at a given date, no need for branching there.
    > > I do not understand why he mentions these documents, they are currently
    > > updated because they are not correlated to the DDP CVS.


    This is true to some extent. But Javi concern is legitimate considering
    stable point release issues. (I hope I remembered all right.)

    > In fact I remember two different urls for stable and development
    > documents.


    Yes there are:
    http://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals on DDP lists
    http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/de.../index.en.html
    which is (or used to be) build from DDP CVS

    while:
    http://www.debian.org/devel/ on developer's corner list
    http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/

    Second one seems to be the one from package and I assumed this being
    manually installed.

    > Anyway what I mean is branching for stable-related and
    > sid-related docs.


    This kind of distribution specific documentation is for installmanual
    and releasenotes. They go like:

    http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/installmanual
    http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/installmanual (Not available
    now. But it was available in the late potato=stable days.)

    > Having a 2-years or more life cycle for stable,
    > we could surely consider point releases for docs (to correct
    > typos and integrate incomplete documentations, translations).


    It was continuous build for normal DDP page. This made it easy to fix
    problem if something break.

    > Branching is the most correct way to deal with this management.
    > And doc updates are also considerable for stable-updates.


    I think if the author intends to make changes to break build process or
    to interfere with usability of document, he just have to make sure to
    stay away from HEAD branch.

    By the way, Francesco, we may want to raise documentation update issues
    during stable point release, once the dust settles over DDP.

    Osamu


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

    iD8DBQFAMTk06A/EwagGHzIRAsvgAJ9IBQFqw45CYTD6SwZqJwS1A8a4AwCfd8PO
    5qY0SlFg96vNMoEN512gm30=
    =fsXY
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  15. Re: Plan for DDP

    On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:42:13PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Anyway, let's push debian-admin to activate DDP on gluck ASAP, while we
    > start working on DDP infrastructure on alioth. So phase 1 from 22nd?
    >
    > Can we agree on this?


    Seconded.

    Cheers,
    --
    Pierre Machard
    http://debian.org
    GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87


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

    iD8DBQFAMT7Us6AtZiNwb4cRAj13AJ9+lQGd2y4fsaEVQt21pD cWmf6iggCffsTi
    U9k5wmNE2ALybsi2icWRr/A=
    =rp3G
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  16. Re: Plan for DDP

    On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:42:13PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
    > > > > Mmm, probably we should consider the same sort of maintainance we have
    > > > > for point releases in stable (and so branching cvs whenever needed).
    > > > [...]

    >
    > There were documentation point release issues which were totally
    > different subject from the web page update frequency issue. Current
    > point release policy does not allow update of documentation *.deb
    > package in the stable distribution. This is because these updates are
    > not "security" issue nor severe "usability" issue. It was considered to
    > be just minor updates to fix glitches by the RM.
    >
    > Javi, and I too, had great doubts on this pedantic rule about "stable
    > point release" since it has no real benefit while enforcing to release
    > known bad documents just to satisfy the letter of the release policy.
    >
    > So the best stable user can do is to use extensive use of APT system to
    > get packages from unstable or use web to get documents from the normal
    > web page section.
    >


    I agree. Not allowing correction of documents is IMHO a bad practice.
    I find also Joey's latest updates a bit too conservative in some way.
    Another area of interest for that is kernel images, but that's OT here.

    >
    > By the way, Francesco, we may want to raise documentation update issues
    > during stable point release, once the dust settles over DDP.
    >
    > Osamu
    >


    Oh sure, those were just my general considerations, not related
    to DDP (re)startup.



    --
    Francesco P. Lovergine


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

  17. Re: Plan for DDP

    On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:42:13PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Anyway, let's push debian-admin to activate DDP on gluck ASAP, while we
    > start working on DDP infrastructure on alioth. So phase 1 from 22nd?
    >
    > Can we agree on this?
    >


    I agree too



    --
    Francesco P. Lovergine


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

  18. Re: Plan for DDP

    Em Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:42:13 +0100, Osamu Aoki escreveu:

    > Hi,
    >
    > Anyway, let's push debian-admin to activate DDP on gluck ASAP, while we
    > start working on DDP infrastructure on alioth. So phase 1 from 22nd?
    >
    > Can we agree on this?


    Agreed.

    []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

  19. Re: Plan for DDP

    Osamu Aoki writes:

    > Anyway, let's push debian-admin to activate DDP on gluck ASAP, while we
    > start working on DDP infrastructure on alioth. So phase 1 from 22nd?
    >
    > Can we agree on this?


    We *already* did agree.

    --
    ......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

+ Reply to Thread