Sylvain Beucler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tapota :
> Hi,
>
> When I tested my Savannah 'merge' in my test install, I was surprised
> to see that some CVS repositories and download areas were not created.
>
> After some head scratching ("where the hell did I introduce a bug!?"),
> I saw that disabling an 'active feature' in the group-specific
> settings not only stop displaying it in the Savane front-end, but also
> prevent its creation in the backend.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, I though disabling an 'active feature' was
> only a cosmetic change. Moreover, if I do so after the project
> creation, it does not remove/disable the feature on the system.
Sure. Because if code was written, we would not like to see it being
erased by mistake.
But I agree that we could improve the backend to even rename the
directory created.
> It is not a way for system administrator to perform per-project
> configuration since these settings can be changed by the project
> administrator - the system administrator would create a group type
> instead.
>
> For example, I disabled the "homepage" in one of my projects because
> the homepage was not ready for people to browse it. However, I did
> wanted it to exist in the system so I could work on it.
>
> So, I suggest not to take these 'active features' into account when
> creating the project facilities on the system. What do you think?
Well, as I wrote the backend to specifically take into account the
fact that features are activated or not, I would naturally be against
:)
And it was never written that active feature was purely cosmetics: if
ou deactivate the bug tracker, you wont be able to use the bug tracker
at all. If was you need is privacy, ask your project to be set to
private (it happened once at Savannah, back in the old day, that a
project was created and set to private for week).
If someone feel his website is not ready yet, he can just put a
front page mentioning that or an .htaccess.
The whole point is avoiding creating useless stuff -- which may
implies many other things. Having 20000 directories with 18000 being
empty inside one directory is not the same as having 2000
directories. Not for the system itself. Not for third party scripts
that may run an rsync commadn on the directory. Not for the sysadmin
looking for a specific directory with the ls command.
Scalability will always be an issue. Creating only what is necessary
is, IMHO, a good start.
--
Mathieu Roy
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ |
| Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ |
| Not a native english speaker: |
| http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
