[long] Canonical are you serious?

[Sean Wheller]

On Monday 24 January 2005 05:55, Enrico Zini wrote:
> 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.

What you are saying is that your team does not know how to run a security 
audit or does not have a protocol for testing security. So they don't want to 
have the overhead. Well, I would have thought with all the expertise running 
around, that somebody would be able to create an update to 1.1.1/2, test it 
and add it to the package management system. Besides we don't need http:// 
access, we can just use the std in std out running as a service.  SVN is 
quite secure in this mode.

>
> 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.

Sure install Bazaar, but get them to do it yesterday. Not by the end of 
January or next month, or whenever. It should have been installed long ago. 
However, some people, already are shy of all the changes. I can't say they 
will want to start using it. Personally, I don't care much which system is 
used, so long as we use one and we can implement features that help us.

>
> 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.

Enrico, why do we have to be pessimistic. This is the problem. Is support from 
Canonical is always going to be a case of, "Let's hope and pray."

>
> 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.

First off, the slow reaction time to moving is already indicative of problems 
and if we resolve that then we must face a new problem. If it is not a 
requirement problem, then it will be something else. Once you have SVN 
installed at Canonical the next problem will be getting them to implement 
post-commit.pl for svn and mail integration. Point is SVN or something else 
the current track record is less than encouraging when it comes to Canonical 
getting things done. How many more problems will there be, I expect many such 
instances in the future and really don't feel like slogging and begging 
people to do things in their own interest.

People like us work in technology. Each eat, sleep and &^%$ technology. When 
we seek solutions we often go beyond the boundary of current system 
capabilities to create a solution to a problem. This is the essence of what 
makes technology go forward. Companies have two choices in this case, "Like 
it, or love it." Not being able to cope with this is not an option.

We are the first Doc Team to actually try this. We are moving into new ground, 
even for the GNOME people. But there is no point us pushing the envelope if 
we don't get support to do so.

>
> 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.  

All the more reason why I would expect Canonical to be more interested and 
attentive.

> In this context, frontal attacks are not likely to 
> improve the situation much :(

Disagree. Sometimes a frontal attack can work wonders. I think this may be one 
of those cases. Enrico, not once, not twice, on numerous occasions you have 
said that you are not getting responses from Elmo. I seem to recall you said, 
"and when I do I get a message like "mako!".

Sorry but nice is not working, maybe it's time to drop the diplomatic efforts.


>
> > 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 :)

It's not only about me. As you know, there are three commiters outside of 
yourself, trickie, plovs and I. Most everyone else is not doing anything on 
the docs. Dunno why, but I expect uncertainty and slow resolving of issues 
has worn them down. 

As it currently stands, building and maintaining an active doc commit group 
will be difficult, why make it even more difficult.

>
> 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!

Now there's a compromise. What you just said was, if Canonical don't move, 
people should just drop ball and not care about the target. :-) Most people 
have already done this, so it seems.

-- 
Sean Wheller
Technical Author
sean at inwords.co.za
http://www.inwords.co.za
Registered Linux User #375355
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20050124/8257a070/attachment.pgp>