Hello, On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:53:08AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 02:30:46PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 12:20:11PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > > However, I'd say that we somehow failed to discuss how exactly to make > > the code public :-( > > Actually, we did discuss it. We agreed that it is fine for now to have a > unionmount branch in the main unionfs repository -- though ultimately I > want to see both as part of the main Hurd tree...
Yes, sure, I remember us having this discussion somewhere at the beginning of the summer. I should have said that we haven't discussed what to do with the code now, while I'm not sure that all the patches are right :-( > However, only approved patches should go into the main unionmount > branch. Yes, that was my point. > So what to do with those that still need review/fixing? Usually each > such patch series would go into a topic branch in a personal > repository. Unfortunately Savannah doesn't offer personal > repositories; so this leaves us with two options: putting the topic > branches in the main repository as well; or putting them in some > other repository, e.g. on gitorious... I'd rather refrain from pushing my personal topic branches to the unionfs repository -- this does smell of something like messing things up. > BTW, aren't you supposed to upload your code to some Google server?... > > (Not saying that this is a good way to make it available; but at least > it should be public in a way...) Yeah, sure, but I'm only required to compress my source code and upload it. I'm more inclined to using a repository at gitorious that relying on this upload. An immediate advantage of referring to a public repository is the ease of making updates. > > OTOH, I could push my repository to something like github. > > As I said before, github has nasty terms of use; I'd rather we get rid > of it. Gitorious supposedly has nicer ones -- though I haven't checked > myself... I guess I wasn't sufficiently attentive when you said that :-( I have tried recently to find something more or less open to host my code, but I didn't come over gitorious :-( I'll read the terms of use on this hosting site and, if nothing bad is written there, push the unionfs repository there shortly. > > > So we'll have the option of showing an XML file as filesystem > > > hierarchy at some time via a simple ls blah.xml,,xml2dir? > > > > > > (or at least the option to do so, once we have the corresponding > > > xml2dir translator) > > > > One can actually do that now already. Just give me the xml2dir > > translator :-) > > There is an xmlfs in hurd-extras. Don't know in what state it is. Ah, yeah, I can remember that. The Hurd Extras page says that it is read-only, but has support for attributes and text nodes. However, I think someone (probably me, when I'll have some spare time) should go and try it out. > > I'm rather inclined to consider that shipping unionfs and nsmux with > > LiveCDs and QEMU images is not an imperative to encourage their > > testing. Potential users could just as well download the code or > > clone the repositories locally. > > Yes, they could. But it's a *considerable* barrier. In practice, it > simply means that hardly anybody will do it, so it's left to rot -- just > like all the stuff in hurd-extras... Hm, you are probably right, but it's still hard for me to comprehend the attitude of a potential user who would test something they have in the LiveCD and wouldn't do that with something that's a single git-clone away :-( Regards, scolobb
