On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:41:02PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > En réponse à Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:24:10PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > > Ralf Treinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > > > > What would be in the cvs ? Only the debian directory ? What about > > > > diffs against upstream ? > > > > > > The whole stuff. And the diff taged differently. BTW, I would > > > like to go for subversion. > > > > Could you give us a (smallish) 'resumé' of the difference between CVS > > and subversion ? I am aware of some, but maybe not everyone is. > > Basically, from what I caught: > - it is possible to move files and directories > - atomic accesses > - possibility to revert changes (there is an history) > > I know nothing of credentials, if anyone could tell.
That said, i doubt we would put very critical stuff in it, all code would be replicated somewhere else, so i think we can try it. Maybe making regular backups or soemthing such, but i don't know if alioth can do this. > > > > In general, I like the idea of co-maintainership. However I think > > > > that there should still be one real person who is the principal > > > > maintainer, and who has some concrete interest in the package. > > > > Otherwise we may end up with a bunch of effectively unmaintained > > > > packages that nooen cares for. > > > > > > You are right: one maintainer and multiple uploaders. > > > > But also multiple people who can work on the packages. > > I meant one "Maintainer:" and multiple "Uploaders:", this is > how comaintainership works currently. But you don't count the people who can help, but are no DD, do you ? These can be maintainers, but not uploaders. > > The idea is that this would mean that the project could provide a > > natural framework for sponsoring non-debian developers, a bit like the > > controversial debian-mentor project, and a bit more, since it would be > > a > > shared stuff. Maybe even some upstreams will help a bit if needed and > > such. In the lond run, this could even become some sort of generalized > > ocaml archive, like some are asking on the caml list, but i don't > > think > > this is our goal. > > In the case of one single project for all packages, I fear that we'll > have to give too many access to the whole set of package to > not-yet-developers. And, what would be the problem ? If we can easily revert changes, they can do no permanent harm. The maintainer/uploader would have to check the changes before uploading a package though. Friendly, Sven Luther
