| 1 |
Hi Andres, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 3/23/06, Andres Loeh <kosmikus@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> dcoutts has described the current practice we use in the Haskell |
| 5 |
> team, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only practice |
| 6 |
> that would work for us. I can imagine that if we can come up with |
| 7 |
> reasonable policies for o.g.o, we can switch to a slightly different |
| 8 |
> (i.e., more public) scheme ... |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I want to thank both you and Duncan for your explaination of how the |
| 11 |
Haskell overlay works. I would love to get your overlay onto |
| 12 |
overlays.g.o, without disrupting the working practices that you've |
| 13 |
found successful. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Which means we need to take another look at the vision of all overlays |
| 16 |
being publically readable, because having a non-public overlay seems |
| 17 |
to be a key part of what you're already doing. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I really don't want o.g.o to carry 'secret' overlays. But maybe |
| 20 |
there's a middle ground that fits with what you need? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If the overlay's changelog is included on o.g.o's front-page, and the |
| 23 |
wiki / GuideXML site is publically readable, but we just disallow |
| 24 |
anonymous access to the overlay itself (only if requested, this |
| 25 |
wouldn't be the default setup) ... how would that work for you? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Stu |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives