Re: wiki.debian.org: Who's maintaining it
[Jonas Smedegaard] > Docbook support was included with 1.3.4 too, but you might be right > that it is broken in that release. If so there's a change that it can > be worked around by plugins, fulfilling the requirement of staying with > stable packages. The option seem to be missing from wiki.debian.org. At least I fail to see any way to extract a docbook version of the wiki pages. So I do not know if it is broken as much as it is missing. Perhaps it is just a configure option, and currently disabled? > Perhaps move (this branch of) the discussion to debian-devel? If > doing so then please cc me, as I am not subscribed to that list. I keep it here for now, as I guess it will either die out soon as no actions will be taken to modify wiki.debian.org, or we take it to private mail to work out the details if it is going to be modified. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "Suite" vs "branch" (Re: [SUMMARY] About terminology [...])
Le Lun 8 Mai 2006 23:21, Filipus Klutiero a écrit : > * stable is not a branch. > Pierre Habouzit answered to this, and I agree with him. However, > he raised at the same time new concerns about considering testing and > unstable branches, and said that referring to experimental as a > branch was in his opinion completely absurd. I agree that > experimental is hardly a Debian branch. I think experimental's role > is a... > repository?(no idea which term goes here) to replace several > unrelated "experimental" Debian branches, I'd use 'sandbox' here, which is quite appropriate IMHO. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpGzN7yXIhcj.pgp Description: PGP signature
"Suite" vs "branch" (Re: [SUMMARY] About terminology [...])
Thanks Christian for bringing this discussion to d-project. There's already some interesting discussion that happened about the topic, but I am not very satisfied with "suite", and would rather see the discussion go on. I discussed the issues I see with "suite" with Christian on #debian-l10n-fr, and he agreed that those were worth being mentioned. As I said in the French thread, I believe the reason I didn't immediately raised the discussion about the English terminology is that English is not my native language neither, so I'm not really comfortable discussing English terminology. But since the discussion was short, I'm adding my concerns. If you are a native English speaker, aren't already bored by a terminology discussion, and are ready for a rather long mail, please participate (even just to give your opinion, that would be useful). I'm sorry for not participating to the thread before you posted your summary, I didn't notice it quick enough. Christian initially proposed "branch", which is so far my favorite term. He then changed to "suite" after the short discussion. I asked him on IRC why he changed, and said it was both the fact that aj gave a suitable definition for "suite", and the arguments of Frans. First, I'll elaborate a bit on what analogy we can have between the usual "SCM branches" and distro branches: On the SCM side, for example talking about a typical upstream software package, the smallest change that can happen to the repository is the addition, update or removal of one file. On the distro side, for example talking about Debian, the smallest change that can happen to the repository is the addition, update or removal of one package. So, as I see it, the analogy between "SCM branches" and distro branches implies an analogy between files and packages. Now, I'll go through the arguments of Frans: * branches need a trunk/root. When comparing with "SCM branches", we need an equivalent for HEAD. I believe this is unstable. I expect Frans to have an answer, since unstable as HEAD is rather obvious, but I don't see the problem for now. * stable is not a branch. Pierre Habouzit answered to this, and I agree with him. However, he raised at the same time new concerns about considering testing and unstable branches, and said that referring to experimental as a branch was in his opinion completely absurd. I agree that experimental is hardly a Debian branch. I think experimental's role is a... repository?(no idea which term goes here) to replace several unrelated "experimental" Debian branches, so it can't be called a branch. I admit that I don't know how it should be called. But, it's a minor problem for me if there's no term that includes experimental. When you ask someone which Debian "version" they use, you expect to get stable, testing, or perhaps oldstable or unstable. Not experimental. My comment on the definition that aj gave: So why do I still discuss "branch" if "suite" works? In French, "suite" means about the same as English "suite". As far as Christian and I know, though, there is no French equivalent to the meaning used for Debian. This is not really a problem for the English side of the question, but it means I'm not the best to talk about this term. Still, the definition given by aj is not great IMO. The goal of this discussion is to find a term which is more general than version, encompassing testing, unreleased, and even unstable, which is not even a version being prepared. This term should keep the meaning of version but lose the restrictions. The problem with aj's definition for "suite" is that it has no obvious relation with "version". For example, I expect that if asked "Which Debian suite do you use?", someone not aware of Debian's usage of "suite" could answer "GNOME"/"KDE" or more likely "huh?" rather than "3.1". More issues with "branch" One big problem with "branch" is that it's inspired from "SCM branches", which are only known by some developers. Currently, we're lucky enough to have a pretty technical audience, so we can expect a good share of it to know about "SCM branches". But for the part of our audience that doesn't, using "branch" isn't much better than inventing a new term. Also, the analogy with "SCM branches" isn't trivial. Even if there were no good explanations of why "branch" wouldn't apply to stable or testing/unstable, the fact that both Frans and Pierre Habouzit, who shouldn't be too clueless about SCM-s :-P , had doubts about "branch" for stable or testing/unstable means that the analogy is far-stretched. Analogy with SCM-s and "suites" I said that the distro-SCM-s analogy for "branch" was far-stretched, but that on the other hand using aj's definition for "suite" to substitute to "version" didn't have a clear meaning. Based on the "SCM branches" analogy, we can try the opposite analogy with "suite". Would the distributor of "upstream" software refer to their branches a
Re: Should this be how i am supposed to act in mailing list discussions ?
Sven Luther a écrit : >[...] >What else can i say, i just want to point out one thing from your own post : > >On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 03:49:06PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > >>Sven wrote : >> >> >>>Indeed. My one-email-per-day-per-thread ipolicy is suspended until this >>>issue is solved, at least for question concerning this issue :) >>> >>> >>So in summary, 4 people warned you about your inadequate attitude, and >>the only replies these people got were yours, violating your >>one-email-per-day-per-thread policy. >> >> > >So, it is clear that you didn't read what i wrote, which in the past prompted >me to repeat myself. > I confess not having read all of your limited mails. But, don't tell me what I missed... >You say this behavior is not acceptable, so, what do you >propose instead ? > > I don't know about what you expect a proposal from me. If you want a proposal of how to react to Michael Banck's mail, I think the subject of my reply to yours clearly indicates that it would have been better not to reply. If you still wanted to reply, you could have replied seriously, with something like this: " Michael, I first stated (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/03/msg00658.html) that I was breaking a resolution of keeping silent, once. Since I ended up with 28 messages on that thread, you replied to my message noting I had broken my resolution. [...] I realized that I am unable to respect this self-imposed policy, and will no longer pretend to follow such a policy. [I will rather attempt to control myself by method foo. Sorry and thanks.] Friendly, Sven Luther " If you think such a reply isn't worth sending to the list, then a reply pretending to be funny is not worth sending neither. >So, is this like i am supposed to behave in email exchanges ? > No. Your message starts with a long part which I'm not sure how to describe. In any case, this part is clearly not a reply to my message. Yet, you put it in reply to me. Not after the part which actually replies to me, because your reply leads to a wider discussion, but before. Clearly, this part has nothing to do in a reply to me. I don't see how it would have anything to do in this thread neither, since this thread is about your communication/oversensitivity issues. Perhaps you meant to reply that in the thread which triggered this one. If not, open a new thread (if you think this really brings new information worth opening a new thread). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wiki.debian.org: Who's maintaining it
On Mon, 8 May 2006 08:25:39 +0200 Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Martin Schulze] > > The version should stay with the version currently in Debian stable. > > Any chance of having the version in Debian stable support docbook > export? > > If not, we can not maintain the documents on wiki.debian.org, and need > to maintain them on our own wiki. That is a bit sad, as we would like > the Debian Edu documents to be available from the official Debian web > pages. > > I managed to figure out the versions if moinmoin. wiki.debian.org > uses 1.3.4 while wiki.skolelinux.de with the working docbook export > uses 1.5.3-rc2. I'm not sure when the docbook feature was introduced, > but it must be somewhere in that version span. Docbook support was included with 1.3.4 too, but you might be right that it is broken in that release. If so there's a change that it can be worked around by plugins, fulfilling the requirement of staying with stable packages. A quick test of installing stable moin on an unstable Debian seems to be working. I have no stable system that I can interrupt currently for more tests, and also I don't really know what kind of failures to look for. So please be more specific about what fails with the stable version. Perhaps move (this branch of) the discussion to debian-devel? If doing so then please cc me, as I am not subscribed to that list. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er n_r: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm pgpnBKAELzZbO.pgp Description: PGP signature
