[lfs-dev] Project contributor names

MENGUAL Jean-Philippe jmengual at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Mar 5 13:09:20 PST 2014


Ok I'm not direct contributor to LFS and F can understand that 
translation stuff isn't the priority of the upstream devs. However, I'd 
like to tell you that with git, it became painful to translate 
cross-lfs. We are now unable to release at the same time, synchronously, 
because unable to understand the revisions, branches, and fuzzy commit 
reports. Probably we sohuld learn git, but F've tried for years without 
success. So spending again a while on this would be painful. All the 
more as for BLFS, project very stressed due to its size, any freeze 
would be somewhat a problem (disappoint the contrib, taking delay). For 
translators, it would imply to update our utilities, mandatory to be 
efficient with blfs given the size of the project. Again here, git will 
be painful.

Finally I think svn is suit to the lfs project and its current workflow. 
But it's only my opinion. It could deal with a new branch such as 
systemd without pain, and translating it will be possible as soon as a 
contrib ask it. And if, someday, systemd becomes trunk, we'll translate 
it (I don't know what's the state of this debate in lfs team because 
writing the bootscripts was a big work for Bruce).

That's why I'd really ask to be careful switching to git, and please 
help us, because it's a pitty to change what works to something so 
unsafe in project management matter. Unsafe not due to the tool, but to 
the men who use it.


Le 05/03/2014 21:52, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> William Harrington wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 7:16 PM, Armin K. wrote:
>>> Well, I guess if we decide to migrate to git, we'll have some sort of
>>> online browser like cgit or gitweb
>>> For example, freedesktop.org uses cgit, here's the mesa repository.
>>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/
>>> Just click on any of the commits below and you can easily see what's
>>> changed.
>>> I expect that lfs-book and blfs-book mailing lists should still be
>>> there, although mail format might be different than the current one.
>> I moved from gitweb to cgit, and I'm liking cgit a lot. Gitweb
>> shouldn't be used.
>> Also, it's much easier to view what is going on with cgit, than gitweb.
>> The only problem is that a test repo needs to be created if the LFS
>> project goes to git.
>> The devs will need to take some time to learn about git and making
>> sure they know how to use it properly.
> I certainly agree.
>> When we moved to git with CLFS, a guide was created for devs to read.
>> http://trac.cross-lfs.org/wiki/Basic%20Git%20Usage
> Yes, we would need to update the developers guide.
> I've gone through a similar tutorial and have an O'Reilly book on git,
> but my concern is how to create and maintain the remote server.  I know
> Armin is working on that.
>> Some things have changed long ago when that was created, but it'll help.
>> As far as getting the initial git repository going and all of that,
>> you've done most of the work. It's all about deploying it now if the
>> community decides to go with git.
>> There has to be a freeze to take the time to migrate svn to git, it
>> does take time because svn repo has been around for 10 years or so.
>> It'll take 12 hours or so for each repo (as you stated on your system).
> First commit for LFS was December 29, 2000.
> First commit for BLFS was May 29, 2002, but that was a conversion from CVS.
>     -- Bruce

Jean-Philippe MENGUAL
Coadministrateur du projet absolinux
Président de l'association traduc.org
Coordinateur du projet Linux From Scratch
Coordinateur au sein du projet Trad GNU de l'April
Animateur suppléant du groupe de travail Accessibilité de l'April
Administrateur d'accelibreinfo

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list