Hello, On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:16:29AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 02:15:44AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 06:07:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > > > Also (if required) I can provide a short explanation on some Hurd > > > > > wiki page. > > [...] > > > There is a small problem though: I'm not sure on which page to create > > > the documentation. There is hurd-web/hurd/translator/unionmount.mdwn, > > > but it's the description of the project idea. > > > I have no opinion on that -- it wasn't me who moved the page there :-) > > This is from the time when my understanding was that unionmount would > indeed be a separate translator from unionfs. If now the consensus (or > actually, more simple, what Sergiu has implemented) is that it is part of > unionfs proper, then this page should be merged into the h/t/unionfs one, > or be made a subpage of it, like h/t/unionfs/unionmount.
I did the merge the day before yesterday and made hurd/translator/unionmount redirect to hurd/translator/unionfs. > > > antrik, is it okay if I add the short documentation about the usage of > > > union-mount-mode options in unionfs to this page? > > Please, in my opinion at least, try to get rid of your (noble-minded, I > know) habit of always asking for permission before doing such changes. > Just do the change -- you're an active part of the community, so you're > entitled to do changes -- and if we don't like it we'll later enhance / > rework / fix / delete it. By the sum of time we spent with you asking > for this change, some of us reading your email, thinking about it, > answering it, you'd already have done this enhancement a few times. Yeah, sure. I'll try to ask less questions, but please pardon me if I will be asking questions about things I don't know at all or things which might bring about unpleasant consequences. > On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 03:20:04PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 6. September 2009 13:30:46 schrieb Sergiu Ivanov: > > > Also (if required) I can provide a short explanation on some Hurd wiki > > > page. > > > This will take less time than writing full-fledge documentation > > > (which means that I'll be able to do it much sooner) and should be > > > enough for the majority of use-cases. > > > > Maybe you can also use it as starting point. Then you won't have to write > > everything over again, but can just reuse the short description to turn it > > into full fledged docs later on. > > Exactly. Let this be our future work-flow: begin with bits of > information, and improve them over time. This is actually, by the way, > exactly what I am doing, and the reason why there are so many unfinished > pages -- which is not a bad thing, as otherwise these unfinished pages > wouldn't be published at all, but only sitting somewhere on my computer. I think I've got it. > On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:08:23AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 10:34:12PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > > Why don't you just do it? > > > > > > It's version controlled after all, so if something is a big problem for > > > someone, we can easily fix it. > > > > I can see your point, but please note that if I were to think of the > > Hurd wiki in terms of a version controlled entity, I would create a > > personal branch and wait for approval from the authorized person to > > move the corresponding modification in the master branch. However, > > it's obvious that creating a personal (private) branch in the hurd-web > > repository is rather meaningless since nobody can see it anyway. > > Well, it's not visible in the HTML pages, but it definitly is visible for > everyone interested in it in the source pages, and I can then simply > merge your branch if I like it. Again, simply *doing* this would have > saved a certain amount of all our time. So, personal branches in the Hurd wiki repository are fine for temporary changes, right? > > > If there's a better place for the documentation, it's trivial to > > > just copy the info there later on. The only thing which is hard > > > to fix are pages which have very many manual backlinks. > > > Everything else can be done in minutes. (that's one thing we > > > gain from having the wiki in version control) > > > > I'm afraid this could introduce ugliness in the history. > > > > It has just occurred to me that a fair part of my thinking about this > > problem is occupied by taking care of the history being nice. I > > wonder whether it's normal :-( > > In my opinion (and Olaf will probably disagree), you should really reduce > thinking about this too much. Rather get some work done. Having a > polished history of flawless changesets is indeed nice (and appealing), > but it is absolutely not essential for progress. We should rather be > concentrating on moving *forward* than trying to preconceive what our > successors might perhaps be thinking about the way we have done our > changes. I can see your point. I think I'll try too keep an eye on the history anyway, because it helps me a lot when locating and fixing bugs, but I will try not to be paranoid about that. > > Seeing how advertently you propagate Mercurial in every applicable > > task > > Yes, a tiny plea: please don't do that all the time on bug-hurd, rather > take these off-topic emails off-list. A bit of off-topicness is always > needed and tolerable, but you have to know when to stop. Else, we might > think about setting up a hurd-chatter mailing list? Sure, sorry for the noise. Regards, scolobb