[Savannah-hackers] Re: XXX.gnu.org

[Mathieu Roy]

"Brian J. Fox" <address@hidden> said:

>    From: Mathieu Roy <address@hidden>
>    Date: 07 Apr 2003 23:55:28 +0200
> 
>    "Brian J. Fox" <address@hidden> said:
>    > 
>    > I didn't say that pages in www.gnu.org should refer to www.gnu.org, I
>    > said that pages in emacs.gnu.org should refer to www.gnu.org -- i.e.,
>    > pages which are canonically stored on www.gnu.org should be referenced
>    > by their complete URLs from sites that are officially NOT www.gnu.org.
> 
>    emacs.gnu.org is officially part of www.gnu.org and IMHO it
>    should stay that way.
> 
> We appear to be speaking two different versions of the same language.
> 
> By (my) definition, emacs.gnu.org is not www.gnu.org.  The reason for
> this statement is that these web sites could reside on different
> physical servers.

By my definition, emacs.gnu.org is www.gnu.org. Because the content of
emacs.gnu.org is the content of www.gnu.org/software/emacs

But the last mail from Richard Stallman seems more favorable to your
definition than mine. 

I still think that /software/ should be considered as part of
www.gnu.org ; I still think that people may have great deal in
mirroring project pages that usually provide usefull information about
projects.
But if I'm the only person to feel that way, there no reason to care
about.

>    > There are multiple solutions for mirrors -- we're only discussing
>    > one here.  For example, the mirror could be pulled from a CVS
>    > repository built just for that purpose, and that could in turn be
>    > built from "translation" software that we run in-house.
> 
>    An output shouldn't be managed by CVS (only sources). 
> 
> One man's output is another man's input.  If the goal is to allow
> mirrors to run any web server they would like, then we can only
> provide those mirrors with standard static documents.  In that case,
> we should build the static versions of those documents in-house.

I agree.
I was trying to say that CVS is meaningful only when you commit files
that permit you to create a website.
Simple example: blabla.sh generate blabla.html which show blabla.jpg.
While you can add in your CVS all the files, only blabla.sh and
blabla.jpg are actually required to build the site. 

I agree that if we are to generate static files, it must be
in-house. I was saying that people should get static files using rsync
instead of cvs. Because rsync is designed for this purpose, while cvs
is not (and anonymous cvs even less). CVS is usefull for concurrent
development, with versionning.
And only the generated static files would be needed (blabla.html
blabla.jpg).

Regards,

-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
 << Profile  << http://savannah.gnu.org/users/yeupou <<
 >> Homepage >> http://yeupou.coleumes.org           >>
 << GPG Key  << http://stock.coleumes.org/gpg        <<