cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide article.sgml doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/releng article.sgml doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook/policies chapter.sgml

Tom Rhodes trhodes at
Sun Aug 17 12:44:05 UTC 2008

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:47:50 +0900 (JST)
Hiroki Sato <hrs at> wrote:

> Gabor PALI <pgj at> wrote
>   in <48A75B1A.7060809 at>:
> pg> Hiroki Sato wrote:
> pg> >  What is the reason why choosing not updating the article?
> pg>
> pg> Please, see [1] and [2], and my commits following this one [3][4].
> pg> Everybody (Remko, Joel, Gabor) I asked, supported the idea, so I felt it
> pg> is time to get the job done.  I take all the responsibility for them.
>  Sorry, I was a bit behind the discussion because of a trip in the
>  last week.  I am still not sure if removing them from doc is better
>  or not even after reading the thread.  Moving all of them into www
>  (or doc), or having them on the both of www and doc would be a
>  reasonable idea, but moving only the team information into www does
>  not agree with the reason why we have article/contributors.
>  No offense and no explicit objection from me here.  I am just nervous
>  about handling this sort of information which can be used in our
>  document more than once.
> Gabor Kovesdan <gabor at> wrote
>   in <48A8001E.1000104 at>:
> ga> separately, so I think it would be complicated to implement. I think
> ga> there are other overlapping parts, like &os; and the current release
> ga> entities. Maybe it would make sense to separate them to a common part
> ga> somehow and use it for the web and the doc?
>  Yes, I think we should go for that direction somehow.  And in a long
>  term, maybe we should merge www and doc into a single repository
>  (like www/en -> doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/htdocs or so) because of making
>  reuse of information easier.  Currently www build heavily depends on
>  doc tree (www only build can be done but the result is not complete),
>  so I think the merged repository with an option for htdocs-only build
>  would also work without a serious problem.

I've honestly liked the idea of merging them for awhile now.

>  BTW, for teams/hats related information, what do you think about
>  adding files including who it is on per developer basis?  An
>  experimental one for showing the concept is attached.  It includes
>  pgpkey, hats, commit bit array, mentors, and location.  Most of
>  member descriptions of teams/hats can be generated from the files,
>  and also the traditional first commit by a new committer can be
>  simplified.

Since hats do not change that often, this is probably a worthwhile
path to walk.

Tom Rhodes

More information about the cvs-all mailing list