headers
Joshua Saddler | 13 Oct 2010 01:24
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Documentation/website in git?

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:46:52 +0400
Peter Volkov <pva <at> gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hi, guys. While there is some job required to move portage tree
> into git it looks like moving documentation and web-site could be
> done much easier. Are there any plans to move on git? Was anything
> done in this direction? This will simplify translator's job as we
> are planning to use git that makes commits faster and allows us to
> ease workflow.

I've been talking to Robin (robbat2) off and on about moving to git
for more than a year now. From what he tells me, it's a simple thing
to switch our website and docs over to git, on the infrastructure
side at least.

There aren't too many changes to make to the docs scripts that gorg
runs, and there's no difference in server load or required storage.

However, we would need to completely rethink our workflow. I jotted
down some notes many months ago; I still have some of 'em:

- Bugzilla changes for drafts and patches? How much would still be
  posted there when we could just have people send pull requests to
  their git clones of our master?
- What about branching? Needed for what we do? What about the
  handbooks? (We used to always do something like that for the
  networkless handbooks, which is partly why we no longer keep
  versioned handbooks around.)
- Reverting commits should be simpler. CVS sucks for reverting
  mistakes.
- Internal doc formatting: should we abandon the <version> scheme,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Crystal Caravan/AppliedIT | 13 Oct 2010 04:02
Favicon

Crystal Caravan is out of the office.


I will be out of the office starting Mon 10/11/2010 and will not return
until Wed 10/13/2010.

Please email biarnold <at> applied.com with any request for quotes or orders.
Thank you.

Notice required by law: 
This email may constitute an advertisement or solicitation under 
U.S. law. If you wish to opt out of receiving further email 
messages from Applied Industrial Technologies, 3301 Euclid 
Ave, Cleveland, Ohio 44115, please send an email to mailoptout <at> applied.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Abbott | 18 Oct 2010 01:25
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Trustee's Funding Page review


Hi Team,
The Trustees on behalf of the Gentoo Foundations are in the process of
applying for 501(c)(3) registration status (non profit). We are updating
our Foundation Funding and Expenditures page [0] to conform to these
guidelines. Please review for errors (ALL Types).
All the best,
David
[0] http://dev.gentoo.org/~dabbott/trustees/funds.xml

--

-- 
David Abbott (dabbott)
Gentoo Linux PR x86 openrc
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dabbott/
http://linuxcrazy.com/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jan Kundrát | 18 Oct 2010 06:52
Picon
Favicon

Re: Documentation/website in git?

Joshua Saddler wrote:
> - Bugzilla changes for drafts and patches? How much would still be
>   posted there when we could just have people send pull requests to
>   their git clones of our master?

I have no preference, but would recommend to follow the rest of Gentoo 
projects.

> - What about branching? Needed for what we do? What about the
>   handbooks? (We used to always do something like that for the
>   networkless handbooks, which is partly why we no longer keep
>   versioned handbooks around.)

I can't see how using Git branches would reduce the work here, though -- 
you still have to write the patches (English text is much less 
structured than C code, so you likely won't be able to make use of

> - Internal doc formatting: should we abandon the <version> scheme,
>   since we can just use git commit hashes? It would reduce the manual
>   bumping we do (and forget to do). How would that work with git
>   history?

No, we can't abandon that for the same reason why we do not use CVS 
keywords or anything. Content change is to be determined by the 
author/committer, not by the simple fact that "someone changed that file".

> - Speaking of history: we'd need a way to carry over CVS history to
>   Git history; we absolutely CANNOT lose the merge/update history, or
>   all the docs that are in and out of the CVS "attic." Often enough
>   we get bugs asking for additions or changes, but it's been settled
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane