Hello, On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 10:34:12PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Montag, 7. September 2009 22:04:58 schrieb Sergiu Ivanov: > > OK. We only have to wait for another two weeks, I guess, until he > > gets back :-) > > Why don't you just do it? > > It's version controlled after all, so if something is a big problem for > someone, we can easily fix it.
I can see your point, but please note that if I were to think of the Hurd wiki in terms of a version controlled entity, I would create a personal branch and wait for approval from the authorized person to move the corresponding modification in the master branch. However, it's obvious that creating a personal (private) branch in the hurd-web repository is rather meaningless since nobody can see it anyway. OTOH, if I do just commit a change to the master branch right now and should it be decided that this change was inappropriate later, there would be two ways out: either remove the commit from the middle of the history or do clean-up commits, both of which are rather ugly. However, while writing this, it occurred to me that I could as well put the short description into hurd-web/user/scolobb . After all, since the GSoC is officially past its end, I can mention the fact and provide a short description of the result of the program. What do you think? > We don't lose anything when those who have most knowledge about the special > area just act, but we lose a lot of time by waiting too much. That's a philosophical point :-) Just acting is not always the best way to do things. This may lead to race condition :-) Anyway, I hope the solution I suggested above (adding the documentation to my hurd-web page) should be good. > If there's a better place for the documentation, it's trivial to just copy > the > info there later on. The only thing which is hard to fix are pages which > have > very many manual backlinks. Everything else can be done in minutes. > (that's one thing we gain from having the wiki in version control) I'm afraid this could introduce ugliness in the history. It has just occurred to me that a fair part of my thinking about this problem is occupied by taking care of the history being nice. I wonder whether it's normal :-( > PS: I now use the wiki via Mercurial and the hg-git extension. That way I > avoid getting bitten by git again ;) > I only need got for *creating* short-lived branches (sicne I can already do > the merging from mercurial). That's great :-) Seeing how advertently you propagate Mercurial in every applicable task, I think I'll have to have a look at it :-) It should be worth the time ;-) Regards, scolobb
