Update of task #2779 (project admin):
Status: None => Need Info
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #2:
>
> Also, some people might want to use tags on their website.
> The best way to deal with that would be to just ask for a path inside
their
> SVN tree which contains the up-to-date version of their website.
This best way implies code changes, database structure changes, implies
non-standardization of paths while Savane is supposed to standardize things.
These three things together make such change unlikely to happen anytime
soon.
(unless someone decide to work on it and is actually convincing about the
idea of using savane to non-standardize things)
But I'd like this move to SVN to happen, in the following month at least.
So I want to start this with things as they are, without working on a code
change.
All in all, I'm not sure to understand why this would not work.
People will be free to do what please to them, we just put a README that if
they want to have data at home.gna.org/project, they have to put it in
/home.gna.org.
Without code changes, the options are:
- adding a directory in the existing sourcecode repository
- adding a repository project.homepage like it is done currently for CVS.
Maybe it is best to go with the second approach, already used for CVS, it
will avoid messing sourcecode and webarea.
So assuming we have a clean empty repository, we can suppose that most
projects wont use branches and tags for their website.
But the easiest is probably to follow the usual model and consider that
/trunk contains the webarea as it is at home.gna.org.
I do not think there is any solid reason not to follow this scheme. SVN gives
freedom to organize things as we want. Well, that's nice, it does not means
that we have to get Savane to guess all possibles cases a human can think of.
It is not something absolutely evil and nasty to ask people to follow a
simple scheme, especially for a repository that is provided only for the
webarea.
For the snapshot tarball issue, the rationale is the same: we can surely
complifies more the code of savane, adding more and more configuration
options. But in the end, it is not something so amazing to ask people to
follow a simple scheme, it is surely more healthy in the overal to try to
keep things simple unless there is really a positive difference made by going
down the hard road.
So well, we can assume how people use their repository because we can provide
to them guidelines. It is absolutely not like if we were asking very
questionable things. And I guess most people is happy with the default layout
(issues with tarbal that happened until now where always with SVN repositories
created elsewhere).
Doesn't it sound sensible? :P
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=2779>
_______________________________________________
Message posté via/par Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Project mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gna.org:8080/listinfo/project
