On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 02:34:37AM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 01:01:19AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 12:25:56AM +0100, Javier Fern�ndez-Sanguino Pe�a > > wrote: > > > Ok, here's my proposal on how should DDP be restored: > > > > > > 1.- Since more than one review has been done of the HEAD branch, restore > > > the CVS service for the DDP at gluck (without pserver access). > > > > Why are there other items? At this point, service is restored, end > > of the story. Everything else is a different matter. > > Restoring the service is not very difficult, but maybe it's possible to > improve the old behaviour? > > I don't know how many people had access to old DDP CVS but all > translators depend on CVS write access. There are currently 34 persons > who contributed to Debian Reference. Add a few translators for other > projects and you get a number of at least 50 people! >
Exactly what I said, A so great number of people having access to gluck is a security nightmare. That can be done on alioth for SGML files only. Splitting the cvs tree is a requirement. We could move current HEAD on alioth and remove makefiles/scripts and authorization files. So we would have history, logs and write access available soon. Scripting and webpages could follow on gluck. -- Francesco P. Lovergine
