[long] Canonical are you serious?

[Sean Wheller]

On Monday 24 January 2005 08:35, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 07:47:08AM +0200, Sean Wheller wrote:
> > 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.
>
> What he is saying is that updating to a version of Subversion newer than
> what is available in Warty involves duplicating the effort of applying
> security fixes on an ongoing basis, which is absolutely accurate.

So we put support effort above contributors ability to execute?

>
> > 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.
>
> The Bazaar team would probably be ecstatic if the documentation team
> decided to adopt Bazaar as a standard for revision control, but my
> understanding is that you chose Subversion instead.  To be honest, Bazaar
> has some rough edges which probably need smoothing before it would be
> suitable for you, but the Bazaar team is working aggressively on usability.

I have Bazaar installed locally and it seems good. Dunno if anyone else has 
tested it. So I am for the move even though I will have to try work out how 
vendor drops work in Bazaar, but I don't speak for others.

>
> > 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."
>
> As discussed with Enrico on IRC, I have agreed to be a liaison between
> Canonical and various Ubuntu teams.  I don't intend for this to be a "hope
> and pray" relationship.

OK, then let's hear some conclusive decisions and schedules on the list.

>
> > All the more reason why I would expect Canonical to be more interested
> > and attentive.
>
> Understand that this is a very rapidly growing operation, with many
> projects involved and expanding as well.  There are bound to be growing
> pains.  The best that we can expect is that problems are addressed as they
> come up, and not before.

Understood. However, I think the problem was not so much of natural pain as 
that induced by certain individuals not reacting. In such instances in a 
"growing operation" you sometimes have to stand and shout or risk being 
forgotten. :-)

>
> Again, I am available as a point of contact on Canonical-related issues.  I
> can't promise to monitor every message on ubuntu-doc, but if you address me
> personally, I will generally respond.

Great. So can we have decision on the following by today:
1. SVN or Bazaar?
2. When can either of the above be implimented?

Thanks,

-- 
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/abbaec2e/attachment.pgp>