I'm sorry that I'm bringing a private discussion (which was CCed to me online), but I don't have any other choice as vipe.t.a.i is not responsive. Several issues were raised there:
1. The Events box and a suggestion to put a Hebrew Translation of it in linux.org.il. At the moment, the Events box is kept as an HTML file, with another one in the same directory for future events. The HTML file is periodically sourced into the PostNuke system with a little PHP glue. (which proved to be exteremely hard in the old Zope installation). There are group permissions to edit it. Several solutions can be made to maintain an Hebrew translation. One would be to create an equivalent Hebrew file, and periodically rsync/wget/whatever it to iglu.org.il. A more sophisticated one would be to write a weblet to allow editing of both files in both languages with a preview, a permission system, synchronization etc. This will require more work, but would probably scale better. 2. CVS vs. the world. It was suggested that the sourfce code fo linux.org.il (If I understood correctly) would be somehow made available for other people to work on. WebDAV was suggested as was CVS. I believe WebDav is inadequate to make sure no collisions occur, and it also does not allow reverting to previous versions. Now, for the version control systems which would be a more adequate solution. Here is a short overview of them: CVS - the de-facto standard. Limited in many ways. I Was told it is hard to get its security right, but it is possible. Arch - works only on UNIXes for the time being (and porting to Win32 is not a high priority for its develoeprs). Very easy to set up as any FTP/WebDAV/SFTP/etc. service is a capable Arch service. Powerful, but still lacks some basic CVS features. Distributed. Subversion - Aims to be a superset of CVS. Installation is straightforward, but requires installing several dependencies (Berkeley DB 4.x, Apache2, and itself). Should be less of a problem if the packages are drawn from Debian unstable, or a similar source. Works natively on UNIX and Win32. Has some performance issues and minor bugs, but works nicely enough. Labeled "Alpha" so technically subject to change. Not really distributed. Monotone - very easy to deploy as well (an HTTP/NNTP/SMTP/whatever depot). Was not explictly ported to Win32. Each developer has his own private repository. Uses a different philosophy than the rest, but the commands are similar to CVS. For more information consult (my own resources): http://better-scm.berlios.de/ http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/ I omitted a great deal of other systems because I found them unsuitable for one reason or another. If it was up to me I'll go with Subversion, unless, of course, ease of maintenance of the service is of the highest priority in which case I'll go with Arch. Regards, Shlomi Fish ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/ Writing a BitKeeper replacement is probably easier at this point than getting its license changed. Matt Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic.
