FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Server Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-17-2010, 09:16 PM
Adam Sommer
 
Default Fwd: Server Guide HTML

Hey all,
Here's a thread from the ubuntu-doc list about the ubuntu-serverguide package. *The suggestion is to drop the package for the reasons given below.
I would like to solicit any feedback the Server Team has about the proposal. *From the UDS-M discussion and IRC meetings the current consensus is to go ahead and drop the package, but if someone has a reason to keep it I'd like to give them a chance to be heard.


If we drop the ubuntu-serverguide package the Ubuntu Server Guide will still be available in HTML and PDF format... just to clarify that we're not doing away with the Server Guide.


Thanks all.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Matthew East <mdke@ubuntu.com>


Date: Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Server Guide HTML
To: Adam Sommer <asommer70@gmail.com>
Cc: ubuntu-doc <ubuntu-doc@lists.ubuntu.com>




Hi Adam,



On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Adam Sommer <asommer70@gmail.com> wrote:

> On the HTML note, at

> the last UDS we discussed dropping the ubuntu-serverguide package, and just

> keeping the HTML, PDF, and DocBook files up to date.



I don't really have a problem with this - I think that it should be

for the server team to decide what they would like to do about things

like this, and if the server team would like to drop the package,

that's no problem. It's important to me that the guide continues to

follow the same string freeze rules, to allow translators to have an

opportunity to ensure that the localisations of the guide are as up to

date as the English version, but you've indicated in your email that

this is the plan, so I'm happy.



If the serverguide html is no longer shipped in the desktop help

system, I wonder whether we should also have a conversation about

whether the advanced-topics document is still helpful. It provides

links to topics which desktop users probably won't use and may be

surplus to requirements. The one document that might conceivably still

be useful is the basic-commands document, but I personally think that

this document doesn't have too much relevance for a desktop help

system nowadays.



What do others think?



--

Matthew East

http://www.mdke.org

gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF



--
Party On,
Adam


--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-18-2010, 05:06 PM
Mathias Gug
 
Default Fwd: Server Guide HTML

Hi Adam,

Excerpts from Adam Sommer's message of Tue Aug 17 17:16:43 -0400 2010:
>
> Here's a thread from the ubuntu-doc list about the ubuntu-serverguide
> package. The suggestion is to drop the package for the reasons given below.
>
> I would like to solicit any feedback the Server Team has about the proposal.
> From the UDS-M discussion and IRC meetings the current consensus is to go
> ahead and drop the package, but if someone has a reason to keep it I'd like
> to give them a chance to be heard.
>
> If we drop the ubuntu-serverguide package the Ubuntu Server Guide will still
> be available in HTML and PDF format... just to clarify that we're not doing
> away with the Server Guide.
>

+1 from me.


--
Mathias Gug
Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-18-2010, 05:50 PM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default Fwd: Server Guide HTML

On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 01:06:50 pm Mathias Gug wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> Excerpts from Adam Sommer's message of Tue Aug 17 17:16:43 -0400 2010:
> > Here's a thread from the ubuntu-doc list about the ubuntu-serverguide
> > package. The suggestion is to drop the package for the reasons given
> > below.
> >
> > I would like to solicit any feedback the Server Team has about the
> > proposal.
> >
> > From the UDS-M discussion and IRC meetings the current consensus is to
> > go
> >
> > ahead and drop the package, but if someone has a reason to keep it I'd
> > like to give them a chance to be heard.
> >
> > If we drop the ubuntu-serverguide package the Ubuntu Server Guide will
> > still be available in HTML and PDF format... just to clarify that we're
> > not doing away with the Server Guide.
>
> +1 from me.

Personally, I've never used the installed package. I've always gone to
help.ubuntu.com.

I would particularly like it if this meant we could do more to fix docs in
current releases. Both of the docs bugs I recently files should be fixed for
Lucid as well as Maverick.

I would not like it if the server guide devolved into just another set of wiki
pages. I would like for the current configuration management to be maintained.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-18-2010, 06:07 PM
Adam Sommer
 
Default Fwd: Server Guide HTML

Hey Scott,*

I would particularly like it if this meant we could do more to fix docs in

current releases. *Both of the docs bugs I recently files should be fixed for

Lucid as well as Maverick.


I think past releases will have to be updated using the SRU process. *I know the Doc Team is usually pretty/very slow to issue updates, but since the package was in those releases, I think the past process will apply.


Anyone on the Doc Team have input about that issue?
*


I would not like it if the server guide devolved into just another set of wiki

pages. *I would like for the current configuration management to be maintained.



That is definitely the plan at this point. *If at some time in the future there are more contributors that could*change some, but I imagine there will always be a limited commit access with proper review and vetting of material. *Also, this allows from translation to be parallel with the English version.


Thanks for your feedback Scott.
--
Party On,
Adam

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-18-2010, 06:31 PM
Matthew East
 
Default Fwd: Server Guide HTML

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Adam Sommer <asommer70@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Scott,
>
>>
>> I would particularly like it if this meant we could do more to fix docs in
>> current releases. *Both of the docs bugs I recently files should be fixed
>> for
>> Lucid as well as Maverick.
>
>
> I think past releases will have to be updated using the SRU process. *I know
> the Doc Team is usually pretty/very slow to issue updates, but since the
> package was in those releases, I think the past process will apply.
> Anyone on the Doc Team have input about that issue?

The issue we have here is that the bzr branch in which the serverguide
is stored is essentially an Ubuntu source package - i.e. the source
package for ubuntu-docs. Changing that bzr branch means that any
upload we do to an existing Ubuntu release of the package will have
those changes in it, even if that document is not something that
appears in a binary package.

That in turn means that when a document is modified in our bzr branch,
we have to be mindful of the SRU process. We also need to bear in mind
that where a change is made to the serverguide, even if that change
won't appear in a package and will just be published to a website,
translators who may well be publishing translated versions are kept
informed so that they can also update their translated versions.

There are various solutions that come to mind.

1. We can do a better job of scheduling regular SRU uploads, and that
might allay Scott's concerns, but because of the nature of string
changes and the need to allow time for translators, I don't think we
can necessarily guarantee that the fixes will be fast to appear.

2. We could take the serverguide out of the ubuntu-docs bzr branch /
source package, and put it in its own bzr branch which wouldn't be a
source package and which wouldn't have the same constraints. That
would raise some process issues about how the docteam would manage the
separate branch and translations of the guide, which is a conversation
I'm happy to have, but equally would be quite a big change so we
should discuss it carefully. Possible disadvantages might include
having to manage different processes for different documents; and
potential divergence of common files used (such as those in the "libs"
folder).

3. We could keep the serverguide in the ubuntu-docs bzr branch /
source package but ask anyone reviewing SRU uploads to ignore any
changes to that document on the basis that it doesn't appear in any
binary packages anyway. Again we would need to establish a process for
information translators about any changes to the document anyway.

I'm not a bzr or packaging expert so I'd be very interested in any
other suggestions or opinions.

--
Matthew East
http://www.mdke.org
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-18-2010, 07:01 PM
Adam Sommer
 
Default Fwd: Server Guide HTML

Hey Matthew,
Seems like the best long term option for the Server Guide is option 2, so I think we should focus discussion on it... at least until a major problem turns up, or something else blocks progress :-).






2. We could take the serverguide out of the ubuntu-docs bzr branch /

source package, and put it in its own bzr branch which wouldn't be a

source package and which wouldn't have the same constraints. That

would raise some process issues about how the docteam would manage the

separate branch and translations of the guide, which is a conversation

I'm happy to have, but equally would be quite a big change so we

should discuss it carefully. Possible disadvantages might include

having to manage different processes for different documents; and

potential divergence of common files used (such as those in the "libs"

folder).



I think it should be pretty easy to keep the libs directory synced between a serverguide branch and the main ubuntu-docs branch. *I imagine bzr merge will come in quite handy for this. *The process should work pretty easy between all common files. *I don't like duplication much... maybe a Makefile statement can handle the merge, or some other automated process.


Seems like overall the process for contributing to the serverguide branch will be very similar to the ubuntu-docs branch as well. *We'll need to update the instructions in the wiki, but hopefully it won't be too complicated for new contributors.


Another idea that comes to mind is potentially adding some type of shell script to the ubuntu-docs package that would create a local branch. *Something like:
**ubuntu-docs get source

**ubuntu-docs get serverguide**ubuntu-docs get kubuntu-docs
That would probably require the ubuntu-docs package to require bzr, so maybe not such a great idea. *And it's sort of getting off topic :-).


I'm fuzzy on the translations aspect... what issues can you see with creating a separate serverguide branch? *I imagine that would require them to look into two different places for translations?


Thanks for you feedback Matthew.
--
Party On,
Adam


--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-18-2010, 10:07 PM
Matthew East
 
Default Fwd: Server Guide HTML

Hi Adam,

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Adam Sommer <asommer70@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2. We could take the serverguide out of the ubuntu-docs bzr branch /
>> source package, and put it in its own bzr branch which wouldn't be a
>> source package and which wouldn't have the same constraints. That
>> would raise some process issues about how the docteam would manage the
>> separate branch and translations of the guide, which is a conversation
>> I'm happy to have, but equally would be quite a big change so we
>> should discuss it carefully. Possible disadvantages might include
>> having to manage different processes for different documents; and
>> potential divergence of common files used (such as those in the "libs"
>> folder).
>
> I think it should be pretty easy to keep the libs directory synced between a
> serverguide branch and the main ubuntu-docs branch. *I imagine bzr merge
> will come in quite handy for this. *The process should work pretty easy
> between all common files.

Yes, bzr merge -r works fine for things like this, but we've found
with kubuntu-docs and xubuntu-docs branches that the common files
diverge pretty quickly, probably just because of a lack of people
taking care of things like this. The same might not be true of
serverguide given how well you've taken care of the document over the
past few cycles

> Seems like overall the process for contributing to the serverguide branch
> will be very similar to the ubuntu-docs branch as well. *We'll need to
> update the instructions in the wiki, but hopefully it won't be too
> complicated for new contributors.
> Another idea that comes to mind is potentially adding some type of shell
> script to the ubuntu-docs package that would create a local branch.

From the docteam's point of view, one thing that is made more
cumbersome by separating documents into a separate package is the need
to get that different branch in order to commit a small fix, or to
build html to put on help.ubuntu.com. Currently, building
help.ubuntu.com is (with the exception of the installation-guide
document) all done from a single command in the root directory of the
bzr branch, but creating more branches would make that process
potentially more complex.

What I think we should investigate is an easy way for ubuntu-doc
contributors to grab documents which might be located in different bzr
branches around the place so that html can be built. It would be
awesome if we could establish some kind of "meta-branch" with the
ability to bring in branches of relevance to ubuntu-docs into one
place. I heard once of a "nesting" feature of bzr, so will investigate
whether this could do what we like. On another thread we're discussing
the possibility of docteam contributors becoming more involved in help
files which are shipped in packages outside ubuntu-docs, such as
software-center, and this sort of process would be useful to that too.

> I'm fuzzy on the translations aspect... what issues can you see with
> creating a separate serverguide branch? *I imagine that would require them
> to look into two different places for translations?

From the translation point of view, it's a question of making sure
that the serverguide is discoverable for translators so that it gets
their attention in the same way that it does now. Launchpad provides
the ability to import/export translations from branches
semi-automatically, so the process itself shouldn't be problematic.
But given that the document wouldn't appear in the ubuntu-docs package
any more, the translations would have to take place in the "upstream"
area of Launchpad, rather than the "distro" area. That might be fine,
as long as it is well documented. I've added David Planella for his
thoughts (David, sorry to drop you into the middle of this thread, but
hopefully the context is reasonably clear from the quotes above).

--
Matthew East
http://www.mdke.org
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 08-19-2010, 07:11 AM
Matthew East
 
Default Fwd: Server Guide HTML

Hi,

It sounds like there is agreement on the concept of removing
ubuntu-serverguide as a binary package, so I have made the necessary
change to our bzr branch. The next upload will not build the binary.

--
Matthew East
http://www.mdke.org
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 09-13-2010, 11:57 AM
David Planella
 
Default Fwd: Server Guide HTML

El dc 18 de 08 de 2010 a les 23:07 +0100, en/na Matthew East va
escriure:
> Hi Adam,
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Adam Sommer <asommer70@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 2. We could take the serverguide out of the ubuntu-docs bzr branch /
> >> source package, and put it in its own bzr branch which wouldn't be a
> >> source package and which wouldn't have the same constraints. That
> >> would raise some process issues about how the docteam would manage the
> >> separate branch and translations of the guide, which is a conversation
> >> I'm happy to have, but equally would be quite a big change so we
> >> should discuss it carefully. Possible disadvantages might include
> >> having to manage different processes for different documents; and
> >> potential divergence of common files used (such as those in the "libs"
> >> folder).
> >
> > I think it should be pretty easy to keep the libs directory synced between a
> > serverguide branch and the main ubuntu-docs branch. I imagine bzr merge
> > will come in quite handy for this. The process should work pretty easy
> > between all common files.
>
> Yes, bzr merge -r works fine for things like this, but we've found
> with kubuntu-docs and xubuntu-docs branches that the common files
> diverge pretty quickly, probably just because of a lack of people
> taking care of things like this. The same might not be true of
> serverguide given how well you've taken care of the document over the
> past few cycles
>
> > Seems like overall the process for contributing to the serverguide branch
> > will be very similar to the ubuntu-docs branch as well. We'll need to
> > update the instructions in the wiki, but hopefully it won't be too
> > complicated for new contributors.
> > Another idea that comes to mind is potentially adding some type of shell
> > script to the ubuntu-docs package that would create a local branch.
>
> From the docteam's point of view, one thing that is made more
> cumbersome by separating documents into a separate package is the need
> to get that different branch in order to commit a small fix, or to
> build html to put on help.ubuntu.com. Currently, building
> help.ubuntu.com is (with the exception of the installation-guide
> document) all done from a single command in the root directory of the
> bzr branch, but creating more branches would make that process
> potentially more complex.
>
> What I think we should investigate is an easy way for ubuntu-doc
> contributors to grab documents which might be located in different bzr
> branches around the place so that html can be built. It would be
> awesome if we could establish some kind of "meta-branch" with the
> ability to bring in branches of relevance to ubuntu-docs into one
> place. I heard once of a "nesting" feature of bzr, so will investigate
> whether this could do what we like. On another thread we're discussing
> the possibility of docteam contributors becoming more involved in help
> files which are shipped in packages outside ubuntu-docs, such as
> software-center, and this sort of process would be useful to that too.
>
> > I'm fuzzy on the translations aspect... what issues can you see with
> > creating a separate serverguide branch? I imagine that would require them
> > to look into two different places for translations?
>
> From the translation point of view, it's a question of making sure
> that the serverguide is discoverable for translators so that it gets
> their attention in the same way that it does now. Launchpad provides
> the ability to import/export translations from branches
> semi-automatically, so the process itself shouldn't be problematic.
> But given that the document wouldn't appear in the ubuntu-docs package
> any more, the translations would have to take place in the "upstream"
> area of Launchpad, rather than the "distro" area. That might be fine,
> as long as it is well documented. I've added David Planella for his
> thoughts (David, sorry to drop you into the middle of this thread, but
> hopefully the context is reasonably clear from the quotes above).
>

No worries, the context is very clear, but sorry for the delay in
replying.

Just as a reminder, with regards to translations there are mainly two
places where translations can be exposed:

* On the upstream project in Launchpad
(https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu-docs or
https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu-serverguide)
* Advantages:
* You can use automatic imports: commit a
translation template (.pot file) and it will be
exposed in Launchpad
* You can use automatic exports: let Launchpad
commit translations automatically in a bzr
branch of your choice
* Disadvantages:
* Less discoverability for Ubuntu translators, who
usually work on the distro space
* On the distro space, in the Ubuntu package
(https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+sources/ubuntu-docs/+translations)
* Advantages:
* Easily discoverable by translators, in the same
space as all other distro translations they
usually work on
* Disadvantages:
* Need to manually upload templates
* Need to manually download templates

So now I'd recommend the distro space for translations, regardless of
the disadvantages, as it's the place you'll get the most translations
from. Also for the translators benefit: they don't have to look for
external (i.e. outside the distro) projects when translating.

In the near feature, a feature allowing message sharing across Launchpad
projects and Ubuntu packages will get you the best of both worlds:
packages will be exposed for translations, and translations will flow to
the upstream project in Launchpad, enabling the use of automatic exports
for the upstream project.

Regardless of the decision, if there are any changes, please remember to
drop an e-mail to the ubuntu-translators list, so they are aware of
them, especially now that we're past doc string freeze.

Thanks!

Regards,
David.

--
David Planella
Ubuntu Translations Coordinator
www.ubuntu.com / www.davidplanella.wordpress.com
www.identi.ca/dplanella / www.twitter.com/dplanella
--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:12 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org