Re: unionmount repository etc. (was: News 2009-08-31)

[Sergiu Ivanov]

Hello,

On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:53:08AM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 02:30:46PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 12:20:11PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> 
> > However, I'd say that we somehow failed to discuss how exactly to make
> > the code public :-(
> 
> Actually, we did discuss it. We agreed that it is fine for now to have a
> unionmount branch in the main unionfs repository -- though ultimately I
> want to see both as part of the main Hurd tree...

Yes, sure, I remember us having this discussion somewhere at the
beginning of the summer.  I should have said that we haven't discussed
what to do with the code now, while I'm not sure that all the patches
are right :-(
 
> However, only approved patches should go into the main unionmount
> branch.

Yes, that was my point.

> So what to do with those that still need review/fixing? Usually each
> such patch series would go into a topic branch in a personal
> repository. Unfortunately Savannah doesn't offer personal
> repositories; so this leaves us with two options: putting the topic
> branches in the main repository as well; or putting them in some
> other repository, e.g.  on gitorious...

I'd rather refrain from pushing my personal topic branches to the
unionfs repository -- this does smell of something like messing things
up.
 
> BTW, aren't you supposed to upload your code to some Google server?...
> 
> (Not saying that this is a good way to make it available; but at least
> it should be public in a way...)

Yeah, sure, but I'm only required to compress my source code and
upload it.  I'm more inclined to using a repository at gitorious that
relying on this upload.  An immediate advantage of referring to a
public repository is the ease of making updates.
 
> > OTOH, I could push my repository to something like github.
> 
> As I said before, github has nasty terms of use; I'd rather we get rid
> of it. Gitorious supposedly has nicer ones -- though I haven't checked
> myself...

I guess I wasn't sufficiently attentive when you said that :-( I have
tried recently to find something more or less open to host my code,
but I didn't come over gitorious :-( I'll read the terms of use on
this hosting site and, if nothing bad is written there, push the
unionfs repository there shortly.
 
> > > So we'll have the option of showing an XML file as filesystem
> > > hierarchy at some time via a simple ls blah.xml,,xml2dir? 
> > > 
> > > (or at least the option to do so, once we have the corresponding
> > > xml2dir translator)
> > 
> > One can actually do that now already.  Just give me the xml2dir
> > translator :-)
> 
> There is an xmlfs in hurd-extras. Don't know in what state it is.

Ah, yeah, I can remember that.  The Hurd Extras page says that it is
read-only, but has support for attributes and text nodes.  However, I
think someone (probably me, when I'll have some spare time) should go
and try it out.

> > I'm rather inclined to consider that shipping unionfs and nsmux with
> > LiveCDs and QEMU images is not an imperative to encourage their
> > testing.  Potential users could just as well download the code or
> > clone the repositories locally.
> 
> Yes, they could. But it's a *considerable* barrier. In practice, it
> simply means that hardly anybody will do it, so it's left to rot -- just
> like all the stuff in hurd-extras...

Hm, you are probably right, but it's still hard for me to comprehend
the attitude of a potential user who would test something they have in
the LiveCD and wouldn't do that with something that's a single
git-clone away :-(

Regards,
scolobb