Hello! On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 03:00:46AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 07:09:42PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > I don't know github.com. But not why simply host (a secondary/backup > > of) the Hurd wiki on the GNU Savannah machine already now? Then we > > can -- later, when the needed infrastructure is in place -- just do a > > clean switch-over (from Barry's flubber to GNU Savannah; for the main > > wiki repository).
This is done now: <http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=hurd/wiki.git> There is read-only access for everyone and read-write access for people that are registered with the Hurd Savannah group. (Please shout if you aren't, but have a need to be.) > > I'd prefer if such things would go over some of the Hurd mailing > > lists, before something is said to have been decided in an IRC > > channel. Which none of the GNU Hurd maintainers is really regularely > > frequenting. > Well, I do actually see one problem with hosting it on Savannah: It > means every wiki committer needs To have a Savannah account, be part of > the Hurd project, and have commit rights. Yes, this nevertheless is the policy for doing RCS-commits to the wiki repository. (In contrast to web-commits, which are open to everyone.) > (Which means commit rights to > all Hurd stuff, unless Savannah has a way to selectively give commit > permissions for individual git repositories...) There currently is indeed no such possibility on Savannah. > But maybe that's not really a big issue, considering that with the need > for copyright assignment, outsiders are not very likely to be interested > in Git access to the wiki anyways... I think that outsiders are likely to do a quick web-commit, rather than locally getting hold of the git repository first, etc. And, as described on <http://www.bddebian.com/~wiki/contributing/wiki/>, there is still the possibility to send in patches by email. > The real reason for setting up a repository on github is that discussing > things on the mailing list; waiting for some Savannah Hurd admin to set > things up etc.; is precisely *not* what we wanted here -- we need a > *quick* and easy solution for the needs of organising GSoC stuff. OK, it was not obvious to me that having the wiki working (commit-wise) was an essential thing. I merely saw its current unsettled working status as inconvenient, but not fundamentally. > (Especially as you are the only admin who has been active over the past > two years or so, and even you have been mostly absent over the past > couple of months.) Yes and yes. It always helps to keep me CCed (as described on <http://www.bddebian.com/~wiki/mailing_lists/> / <http://www.bddebian.com/~wiki/community/communication/>). I don't always get to read all the mailing lists in a timely fashion. I will eventually, but immediate issues should always have a CC directly to my address. > To make matters worse, when I asked you a couple of days ago what you > propose to do about the wiki situation, you gave me an answer that, > quite frankly, sounded like "wait and pray" Yes, yes, this soulds like standard tschwinge practices... ;-) > so I decided to take > initiative and look for another solution. Luckily, with the > decentralized nature of Git, this in to problem at all. (Except perhaps > for some additional noise in the history...) Yo, taking initiative often enough is a way to attrackt my attention and even get me active again! :-) > Note that I have no objection to using the Savannah repository, once it > actually exists *and* all the involved people have commit access... I will take care of merging between the two/three (with github) repositories. Regards, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
