Re: Requiring SCM

On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 10:12 -0500, Nikolas 'Atrus' Coukouma wrote: > I concur that requiring that maintainers use cvs.php.net/pear is a bit > draconian. I'd rather give people a chance with liberty and tighten as > necessary. The way I see it, the worst case is that we're back to where > we are now: we still have the last release and any bug reports. I must agree, Chuck has valid points and I do want to force cvs.php.net but I also think that it would be way too strict, thus I go with the way that Pierre summed in such a good way earlier ;) > Still, it would be nice to be in better shape. I suggest setting up a > system for fetching nightly tarballs. We could offer CVS, Subversion, > and possibly a couple others if people want them for some reason (arch > comes to mind). This provides a backup in case the server goes down and > a daily check. QA and the maintainer can be automatically notified after > n failures to checkout a copy. > > I hate to dump more work on the server admins, but this seems like a > reasonable enough compromise. I imagine package maintainers could use a > web form to manage their SCM settings: > - use cvs.php.net/pear or external > - if external: > * versioning system > * server > * path/module > * user (anonymous?) > * (preferably empty) password > This information could also be used to guide people who want to check > out the source themselves (i.e. "This package uses CVS. You can check it > out with the following command ...") Nightly tars and more like that might be something we could do in the future, we just need at least one more machine to handle such thing. And who knows, maybe someone with big enough bandwidth is willing to donate such thing ;-) - Helgi