Re: [Jeff Bailey <address@hidden>] Re: [Savannah-hackers] savannah.gnu.org: submission of GNU and FSF Organizational Files

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Jeff Bailey <address@hidden> wrote:

> Concur - But I don't have a good alternative that means "All GNU users".  
> Since we have tended in the past to be quite free with giving away 
> accounts, I didn't see this as tragically different that making it 
> available to anonymous. =)

The stuff in /gd/gnuorg should *not* be accessible via anonymous CVS.
Perhaps it'd just be better if we made a "gnuorg" project separately?

I am not against using gnudocs, but I do want to make it less trivially
accessibly than gnudocs appears to be.

I realize we give lots of people GNU accounts, but it's not nearly as many
people who might try to access via anoncvs.


What is in gnudocs now sounds like it might be generally useful, unlike
stuff in gnuorg, which is not useful to anyone who isn't actively working
for the GNU project.  So, it seems that another project is order.

Also, it's *imperative* that /gd/gnuorg be updated-on-commit just like
gnudist:/var/www is.  Also, making it very hard to edit things in /gd/gnuorg
anymore would be a Good Thing (TM) too.

Finally, please make sure when /gd/gnuorg gets imported that we properly
save state from those files that are already under RCS there.


BTW, in regard to your much earlier query about putting gnuorg in CVS: I
personally agreed with you, and have wanted to do it for a while.  There was
some resistance, but I have done some campaigning and that resistance is
gone.  In the end, RMS said to me and Mark: "Well, everyone who updates
/gd/gnuorg will just have to learn CVS".  That, to me, says we can go for
it.  ;)

pgp3de6YHoRN1.pgp
Description: PGP signature