[long] Canonical are you serious?

[Enrico Zini]

On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 08:04:03PM +0200, Sean Wheller wrote:

Hello Sean,

There is one thing in your mail that I need to comment on:

> I explained that I have a solution and am able to generate Ubuntu docs with 
> dependencies on GNOME upstream vendor drops. However, the solution needs 
> Subversion 1.1.1 or higher. Enrico explained that he had been chasing Elmo to 
> move the repository from hornbecks' host to a Canonical server without much 
> success. Now warty does not have SVN 1.1.1/2 so this would be an additional 
> problem. I can't see why? Just install SVN 1.1.2, upgrade your Apache2 and be 
> done with it.

There actually is a reason not to want in the servers software which is
not in Warty: it complicates maintenance, and it complicates it a lot.

If they install subversion 1.0.6, then they get security updates
normally with the distro; if they install a version that is not
supported in the distro, then they need a special security team only for
this extra software in their servers.  This is common in serious server
farms: you trade features for security and stability.

This doesn't mean it can't be done.  One option would be to install the
version of subversion that is in Hoary (less than ideal, but at least
it gets audit like the rest of in-development distro does); another
option would be to finally set up this baz playground we've been waiting
for a long time (bugzilla bug 5073) and use that only for the Gnome
User's Manual: that way who's interested can both learn how baz works
and take care of the User's Guide; who's not interested can work with
the rest of the documentation.

There is indeed a problem in getting things into the server farm, and
that's why I told you I was pessimist on expecting too much from that
side.

I also wrote yesterday a mail to mdz and mako showing this and asking
them suggestions and help.  I hope this can get things to unstuck from
where they are now.


> There have been enough transparent messages and discussions for anyone
> at Canonical to step in and say, we can't move the svn or it must be
> the SVN packed with warty.

There is to be said that we always talked about the move from Hornbeck's
machine to Canonical server farm, but we never talked about special
requirements for the subversion server: in fact, the version issue came
out only yesterday after your told that the result of your research was
a nice method but it required symlinks.

Please also note that this is the first time some services specific to
the docteam try to get into the server farm, so we're pioneering lots of
things: communication problems, responsibilities, permissions, new
software, trust.  In this context, frontal attacks are not likely to
improve the situation much :(


> If this message manages to get people into gear, then it will have achieved 
> its goal and my leaving the project on this note would have been worth it.

Well, I think it has at least helped showing my point that someone in
the team is getting pissed about this transition not happening :)

I hope that now something gets moving, frustration goes down and work
will be pleasant again.  If in the end we can't work on the Gnome User's
Guide, then that'll be mainly a problem of Canonical (they won't get a
branded User's Manual for Hoary) and we sit down and relax adding some
stressless chapters to the QuickGuide: together with the rest, we'll
have done something really cool for Hoary anyway, and post-Hoary the
challenge would begin again!


Ciao,

Enrico

--
GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico at debian.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20050124/69df1d91/attachment.pgp>