[Savannah-hackers] Re: gnuorg summary

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Loic Dachary <address@hidden> wrote:
> 

>        Could someone please summarize the conclusions of the thread on
> gnuorg ? My personal feeling is that only the .texinfo files should be
> on CVS, not readable anonymously and formated on gnudist nightly, pretty
> much as it is the case now.
> 
>        If nobody has time or is willing to summarize I'll read the whole
> thread.


A quick summary:

  * we basically decided that it was reasonable to put all of gnuorg in
    CVS.  (Loic, I'd be curious to hear your reasons that you don't think
    so)?

  * everyone is ok with "gnuorg in CVS" *not* being readable by anoncvs once
    it was discussed.  People who need write access will just ask me for
    access.

  * "gnuorg in CVS" must be auto-checked out from CVS into fp:/gd/gnuorg

  * Everyone agrees that gnuorg needs to be reorganized, but no one has
    time.

Other issues (important but not discussed and/or decided yet):


  * "gnuorg in CVS" needs the ".symlink" solution for it too---there are
    important symlinks there that people expect.

  * We need a good solution for handling the Makefiles.  I proposed one but
    wasn't sure it'd work without fail.  (simply .cvsignore any derived
    files the Makefile generates in /gd/gnuorg

  * "gnuorg in CVS" is likely a different project than gnudocs; however,
    there are some things that should be migrated there.  I propose we
    create a new project for "gnuorg" but move some files (like
    standards.texi and maintain.texi) into gnudocs and leave gnudocs
    anonymous-CVS-readable.

  * Is it reasonable to import /gd/gnuorg into "gnuorg in CVS" and wait for
    a reorg until later?  I propose the only reorg that'd be done now would
    be to move standards.texi, maintain.texi, and a few other public-ish
    files to gnudocs.  The rest would wait, and would need to be done in CVS
    later.  How does that sound?

pgpr0_tdt3aWD.pgp
Description: PGP signature