You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by rb...@covalent.net on 2000/11/18 17:10:26 UTC
htdocs?
Are we going to fix htdocs ever? It is seriously broken right now. I
agree with the goal for the htdocs sub-group, but I would really like
cvs update's to work properly.
As it is now, I end up not checking out htdocs, because it just screws up
my tree, which means that this split is having the opposite effect of what
was originally intended.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: htdocs?
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> I know you're trying to make a point that developers aren't writing docs.
> But it is just moot. Whether developers do or not, or whether they download
> it or not, is not the issue.
>
> The split has encouraged much more doc writing than there ever was. This is
> Goodness. Mucking with the organization of htdocs is NOT going to change who
> or how much contribution occurs.
The split had nothing to do with encouraging people to contribute
docs. What encouraged people to write docs was opening the docs to more
people. The split was how we accomplished that. There have been two
people (Roy and Marc) who have said the split was unnecessary. It is
possible to open the htdocs directory to more people without the split
according to them. I have just started playing with CVS, so I am the
wrong person to be arguing how to do it. I just want to be able to work
on docs without any more hassle.
I have no problem opening the htdocs to more people, hell I'm all for
it. I do have a problem with the mechanism chosen to do that, if it
causes these kinds of problems.
> > You won't see them in apache-2.0/htdocs. The problem is the &htdocs-2.0
> > in the modules file.
>
> Okay. If that is the problem, then why is it still in there?
Because not having it there was veto'ed a while ago. I believe it was
Marc who veto'ed it back then, but I'd have to check the archives to be
sure. Unfortunately our archives haven't worked for a long time so that
is much harder to do. I'll try to find the veto later tonight.
In other words what we have is a broken repository with two vetos. One
from a while ago forces the &htdocs in the modules file. The other keeps
us from fixing the problem another way. :-(
> > You won't find that file. But, if you check out the htdocs directory
> > yourself, it's there. If after you do a checkout, you go into the htdocs
> > directory and do a cvs update, you will get a lot of errors as well.
>
> If the &htdocs-2.0 is not doing what it should, then punt the damn thing.
Can't. The veto process forbids it.
> You can't blame the break on the split if it is caused by problems with
> interpreting the modules file!
Yes I can. The split was the wrong solution to the problem. Marc
outlined in MANY e-mails a less destructive way to get the same result,
but we split the repositories anyway.
> We have a repro case. Cool. A quick persual of a CVS FAQ would probably turn
> up the answer.
>
> If that is the case, then we do one of two things:
>
> 1) tell people to only check out the subdir rather than the parent
> 2) put a file in there
>
> Personally, I don't know why there is a subdir in the first place. If we
> always skip the parent dir, then what's the point?
That's a part of the problem. We don't always skip the parent dir. The
parent dir has more information in it. I don't understand why the
instructions were to only check out the htdocs directory, because the API
docs are at the same level as the htdocs.
> > > 2) checking out httpd-docs-2.0 directory doesn't work. easy resolution:
> > > check out httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
> >
> > Checking out the whole repository does work. However you can't check it
> > out in your development tree and still update the tree.
>
> Because of the EmptyDir thing? Okay. Let's find out why that happens?
>
> It seems a bit silly to revise our CVS repository strategy to fix EmptyDir
> before we even know the true *cause* of EmptyDir.
>
> And your two sentences seem inconsistent. Checking out the whole repository
> obviously doesn't work, if you can't update your tree.
Have you tried checking out the whole repo? It works just fine and that
directory will continue to work. It has two subdirs, apidoc and
htdocs. The problem ONLY occurs when the whole repo is checked out into
the apache source tree. Those are two completely different cases. The
repo works just fine; it doesn't interact well with the source repo.
> > They have been delete from Apache, however the modules file has us
> > checking them out anyway. We tried removing this once, and that was
> > veto'ed, because people said that developers need to actually download the
> > docs. I happen to agree that forcing developers to download the docs is
> > 100% correct. However, currently we force developers to download partial
> > docs only, which is completely bogus.
>
> If the feature doesn't work, and it gets in the way of developers who *do*
> want to download docs... then it should be axed.
Get the damn veto removed then.
> The answer is to fix the modules file. Not to muck with the split.
>
> I'd say that the people to veto removing that line were effectively saying
> "please don't fix things. I want my htdocs to continue breaking."
The answer is to fix the problem. I don't care how it is done, I just
want it done. You want more people to be able to work on the docs, so do
I. Marc wants the htdocs directory checked out for him, so do I. Marc
and Roy have both said both are possible, but it is easier with a
different layout.
I'm not trying to be a PITA, I just want to be able to get more done, and
right now our CVS repository layout is getting in the way of that. :-(
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: htdocs?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 04:25:23PM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> > > I completely disagree. Have you noticed that 99% of the changes to the
> > > docs are from non-coders. That is very good and very bad. It is good
> > > because the docs are getting updated and bad because it shows that the
> > > coders feel they don't need to deal with the docs.
> >
> > And what is your point? Say it is bad all you like, but it is not going to
> > change how people work. Either the coders will do the docs, or they won't.
> > One or two repositories isn't going to change it.
>
> The point is that developers aren't writing docs. I wish we could know
> how many developers were actually downloading the docs, but we can't
> really know that.
I know you're trying to make a point that developers aren't writing docs.
But it is just moot. Whether developers do or not, or whether they download
it or not, is not the issue.
The split has encouraged much more doc writing than there ever was. This is
Goodness. Mucking with the organization of htdocs is NOT going to change who
or how much contribution occurs.
If the split encouraged it, then let's not unsplit.
> > > BTW, I just did another FRESH checkout from CVS, and I'm still getting
> > > files in the htdocs directory.
> >
> > What files? I didn't see any in my look through apache-2.0/htdocs/. If you
> > can list them, then we can fix it.
>
> You won't see them in apache-2.0/htdocs. The problem is the &htdocs-2.0
> in the modules file.
Okay. If that is the problem, then why is it still in there?
> That checks out part of the htdocs directory
> automatically when you check out Apache 2.0. The problem is that the
> files it checks out are incomplete. You already have my .cvsrc file, now
> execute these commands with that .cvsrc:
>
> cvs -d rbb@locus.apache.org:/home/cvs co apache-2.0
> cd apache-2.0/htdocs/manual/mod
> ls mpmt_pthread.html
>
> You won't find that file. But, if you check out the htdocs directory
> yourself, it's there. If after you do a checkout, you go into the htdocs
> directory and do a cvs update, you will get a lot of errors as well.
If the &htdocs-2.0 is not doing what it should, then punt the damn thing.
You can't blame the break on the split if it is caused by problems with
interpreting the modules file!
> > You have identified three problems that I know of:
> >
> > 1) some EmptyDir thing. we don't know if this is because of the htdocs split
> > or some temporary inconsistency in one of the CVS repositories or pserver
> > or whatever.
>
> I don't use pserver, so I doubt that is involved at all.
>
> Considering I was able to do a "cvs update" as soon as I removed the
> htdocs dir, and in another repository that I hadn't checked out htdocs, I
> tend to believe this is related to the htdocs split. However I am willing
> to concede that this was most likely due to my checking the entire
> httpd-docs-2.0 repository. I have just duplicated this problem exactly by
> doing:
>
> cvs -d rbb@locus.apache.org:/home/cvs co apache-2.0
> cd apache-2.0
> rm -Rf htdocs
> cvs -d rbb@locus.apache.org:/home/cvs co -d htdocs httpd-docs-2.0
> cvs update
>
> This gives the errors:
>
> Warning: Remote host denied X11 forwarding, perhaps xauth program could
> not be run on the server side.
> cvs server: failed to create lock directory in repository
> `/home/cvs/CVSROOT/Emptydir': Permission denied
> cvs server: failed to obtain dir lock in repository
> `/home/cvs/CVSROOT/Emptydir'
> cvs [server aborted]: read lock failed - giving up
>
>
> Saying that I can't checkout the full repository is a bit bogus, but I am
> willing to accept this as a limitation.
The point is to ask why the error occurs in the first place? What is the
true stimulus? Is it that httpd-docs-2.0 does not have anything besides an
"htdocs" subdirectory? (i.e. that it is empty)
We have a repro case. Cool. A quick persual of a CVS FAQ would probably turn
up the answer.
If that is the case, then we do one of two things:
1) tell people to only check out the subdir rather than the parent
2) put a file in there
Personally, I don't know why there is a subdir in the first place. If we
always skip the parent dir, then what's the point?
> > 2) checking out httpd-docs-2.0 directory doesn't work. easy resolution:
> > check out httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
>
> Checking out the whole repository does work. However you can't check it
> out in your development tree and still update the tree.
Because of the EmptyDir thing? Okay. Let's find out why that happens?
It seems a bit silly to revise our CVS repository strategy to fix EmptyDir
before we even know the true *cause* of EmptyDir.
And your two sentences seem inconsistent. Checking out the whole repository
obviously doesn't work, if you can't update your tree.
> > 3) files still exist somewhere in apache-2.0/htdocs. name them, and we'll
> > get them deleted properly.
>
> They have been delete from Apache, however the modules file has us
> checking them out anyway. We tried removing this once, and that was
> veto'ed, because people said that developers need to actually download the
> docs. I happen to agree that forcing developers to download the docs is
> 100% correct. However, currently we force developers to download partial
> docs only, which is completely bogus.
If the feature doesn't work, and it gets in the way of developers who *do*
want to download docs... then it should be axed.
If a developer doesn't want to bother with the docs, then they won't.
Playing gimmicks in the modules file is just that: gimmicks. It isn't going
to change the developers' behavior. And hell -- it is causing problems for
the developers who *do* have the "desired" behavior.
The answer is to fix the modules file. Not to muck with the split.
I'd say that the people to veto removing that line were effectively saying
"please don't fix things. I want my htdocs to continue breaking."
>...
> > Each of these has a specific resolution. None are permanent problems due to
> > the split.
>
> I have just given you a VERY specific analysis of the problem. This is
> completely reproducable and it is exactly what people have been
> complaining about ever since the split was made.
Your explanation was the first to provide this kind of detail. I've heard
some grumbling, but nobody was ever substantive or tried to explain what the
real problem was.
> If you know how to fix
> these issues, then please do so.
Sounds like we remove that joke of a line in the modules directory.
> If you don't know how to fix them, then
> please remove your veto so that Roy can fix them by moving the htdocs
> back into the source tree.
>
> BTW, the way I read what Roy was going to do, it didn't keep people from
> contributing to just the docs, it just solved the problem in a different
> way.
It sounded like he was going to 'mv' the repository down inside of the
apache-2.0 repository. That will break a lot of things. If he does a "cvs
add" to copy all the files over, that would work for a bit.
But what do we do about permissions then? Right now, both repositories are
group-owned by "apcvs" and we use the "avail" file to apply ACLs. If we
shove the htdocs down into apache-2.0, then what does the avail file look
like then?
I found Roy's note to be rather less-than-detailed about the "solution". And
it certainly didn't explain the problem that *he* had with the system. I
understand the issue that you're seeing, but it sounds like it is two
things:
1) the EmptyDir thing (we need to find out "why")
2) the modules file (delete the dumb line)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: htdocs?
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> > I completely disagree. Have you noticed that 99% of the changes to the
> > docs are from non-coders. That is very good and very bad. It is good
> > because the docs are getting updated and bad because it shows that the
> > coders feel they don't need to deal with the docs.
>
> And what is your point? Say it is bad all you like, but it is not going to
> change how people work. Either the coders will do the docs, or they won't.
> One or two repositories isn't going to change it.
The point is that developers aren't writing docs. I wish we could know
how many developers were actually downloading the docs, but we can't
really know that.
>
> > BTW, I just did another FRESH checkout from CVS, and I'm still getting
> > files in the htdocs directory.
>
> What files? I didn't see any in my look through apache-2.0/htdocs/. If you
> can list them, then we can fix it.
You won't see them in apache-2.0/htdocs. The problem is the &htdocs-2.0
in the modules file. That checks out part of the htdocs directory
automatically when you check out Apache 2.0. The problem is that the
files it checks out are incomplete. You already have my .cvsrc file, now
execute these commands with that .cvsrc:
cvs -d rbb@locus.apache.org:/home/cvs co apache-2.0
cd apache-2.0/htdocs/manual/mod
ls mpmt_pthread.html
You won't find that file. But, if you check out the htdocs directory
yourself, it's there. If after you do a checkout, you go into the htdocs
directory and do a cvs update, you will get a lot of errors as well.
> You have identified three problems that I know of:
>
> 1) some EmptyDir thing. we don't know if this is because of the htdocs split
> or some temporary inconsistency in one of the CVS repositories or pserver
> or whatever.
I don't use pserver, so I doubt that is involved at all.
Considering I was able to do a "cvs update" as soon as I removed the
htdocs dir, and in another repository that I hadn't checked out htdocs, I
tend to believe this is related to the htdocs split. However I am willing
to concede that this was most likely due to my checking the entire
httpd-docs-2.0 repository. I have just duplicated this problem exactly by
doing:
cvs -d rbb@locus.apache.org:/home/cvs co apache-2.0
cd apache-2.0
rm -Rf htdocs
cvs -d rbb@locus.apache.org:/home/cvs co -d htdocs httpd-docs-2.0
cvs update
This gives the errors:
Warning: Remote host denied X11 forwarding, perhaps xauth program could
not be run on the server side.
cvs server: failed to create lock directory in repository
`/home/cvs/CVSROOT/Emptydir': Permission denied
cvs server: failed to obtain dir lock in repository
`/home/cvs/CVSROOT/Emptydir'
cvs [server aborted]: read lock failed - giving up
Saying that I can't checkout the full repository is a bit bogus, but I am
willing to accept this as a limitation.
> 2) checking out httpd-docs-2.0 directory doesn't work. easy resolution:
> check out httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
Checking out the whole repository does work. However you can't check it
out in your development tree and still update the tree.
> 3) files still exist somewhere in apache-2.0/htdocs. name them, and we'll
> get them deleted properly.
They have been delete from Apache, however the modules file has us
checking them out anyway. We tried removing this once, and that was
veto'ed, because people said that developers need to actually download the
docs. I happen to agree that forcing developers to download the docs is
100% correct. However, currently we force developers to download partial
docs only, which is completely bogus.
This whole thing came about because I was trying to look at the
mpmt_pthread.html file that was committed the other day. When I looked in
the htdocs directory that is automatically downloaded it wasn't
there. When I did a cvs update to try to get it, I got errors. When I
removed the directory and checked out a new version, I screwed up (in this
case an easy thing to do, too easy IMHO) and checked out too much.
> Each of these has a specific resolution. None are permanent problems due to
> the split.
I have just given you a VERY specific analysis of the problem. This is
completely reproducable and it is exactly what people have been
complaining about ever since the split was made. If you know how to fix
these issues, then please do so. If you don't know how to fix them, then
please remove your veto so that Roy can fix them by moving the htdocs
back into the source tree.
BTW, the way I read what Roy was going to do, it didn't keep people from
contributing to just the docs, it just solved the problem in a different
way.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: htdocs?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 03:34:06PM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>...
> > > Now, if I remove htdocs from the Apache tree, I can successfully checkout
> > > htdocs. It looks like last night, I left off the trailing htdocs/
> > > directory from the httpd-docs-2.0 repository, which is what cause my
> > > problem.
> >
> > Not sure how a trailing slash would affect anything. I set up my working
> > directories without trailing slashes, and it works fine.
>
> It wasn't the trailing slash. It was the tailing htdocs. In other words,
> I did cvs co -d htdocs httpd-docs-2.0. That doesn't work.
Right. That is why my command line had "httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs". You have to
get the subdir. Works great from there.
> > > Regardless, the errors above are a problem. The docs have
> > > become a bigger hassle than they are worth right now.
> >
> > I disagree. I've never seen so much change to the docs, until we broke them
> > out. The entire motivation for the split was to enable people to work on
> > them. And that has been *very* successful, IMO.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a hassle here. About the only hassle is
> > the "make install" requiring us to have an htdocs directory.
>
> I completely disagree. Have you noticed that 99% of the changes to the
> docs are from non-coders. That is very good and very bad. It is good
> because the docs are getting updated and bad because it shows that the
> coders feel they don't need to deal with the docs.
And what is your point? Say it is bad all you like, but it is not going to
change how people work. Either the coders will do the docs, or they won't.
One or two repositories isn't going to change it.
> BTW, I just did another FRESH checkout from CVS, and I'm still getting
> files in the htdocs directory.
What files? I didn't see any in my look through apache-2.0/htdocs/. If you
can list them, then we can fix it.
> There is a problem, and you are one of the few people to not see it. I
> don't know what you are doing differently from the rest of us, but others
> have said they are having problems with the htdocs dir.
You have identified three problems that I know of:
1) some EmptyDir thing. we don't know if this is because of the htdocs split
or some temporary inconsistency in one of the CVS repositories or pserver
or whatever.
2) checking out httpd-docs-2.0 directory doesn't work. easy resolution:
check out httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
3) files still exist somewhere in apache-2.0/htdocs. name them, and we'll
get them deleted properly.
Each of these has a specific resolution. None are permanent problems due to
the split.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: htdocs?
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> > I JUST did a completely fresh checkout of Apache against HEAD, and there
> > is an htdocs directory.
>
> There shouldn't be. Did you not use -P to prune empty directories? In my
> .cvsrc, I have a line that contains "co -P -d" to ensure that empty
> directories are always pruned.
Here is my .cvsrc:
checkout -P
update -P -d
diff -u -d -b -w
rdiff -u
cvs -q -z3
It prunes all the rest of the empty dirs. Plus, that isn't an empty
directory in HEAD. That directory has files in it. I don't know where
you are checking out against, but I get actual files when I do:
cvs -d rbb@locus.apache.org:/home/cvs co apache-2.0
> > Warning: Remote host denied X11 forwarding, perhaps xauth program could
> > not be run on the server side.
> > cvs server: existing repository /home/cvs/apache-2.0/htdocs does not match
> > /home/cvs/httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
> > cvs server: ignoring module httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
>
> Yup. Symptomatic of not using -P.
'fraid not.
> > Now, if I remove htdocs from the Apache tree, I can successfully checkout
> > htdocs. It looks like last night, I left off the trailing htdocs/
> > directory from the httpd-docs-2.0 repository, which is what cause my
> > problem.
>
> Not sure how a trailing slash would affect anything. I set up my working
> directories without trailing slashes, and it works fine.
It wasn't the trailing slash. It was the tailing htdocs. In other words,
I did cvs co -d htdocs httpd-docs-2.0. That doesn't work.
> > Regardless, the errors above are a problem. The docs have
> > become a bigger hassle than they are worth right now.
>
> I disagree. I've never seen so much change to the docs, until we broke them
> out. The entire motivation for the split was to enable people to work on
> them. And that has been *very* successful, IMO.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a hassle here. About the only hassle is
> the "make install" requiring us to have an htdocs directory.
I completely disagree. Have you noticed that 99% of the changes to the
docs are from non-coders. That is very good and very bad. It is good
because the docs are getting updated and bad because it shows that the
coders feel they don't need to deal with the docs.
BTW, I just did another FRESH checkout from CVS, and I'm still getting
files in the htdocs directory.
There is a problem, and you are one of the few people to not see it. I
don't know what you are doing differently from the rest of us, but others
have said they are having problems with the htdocs dir.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: htdocs?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 12:15:35PM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > cvs import is generally bogus. That isn't what we want.
> >
> > What is wrong with checking out the htdocs tree into the Apache 2.0 tree?
> > That ought to work quite fine. I see no problem with htdocs.
>
> Last night, I took a tree that didn't have the htdocs directory, and
> checked out the httpd-docs-2.0 into htdocs. This morning I tried to
> update that tree to get the fixes that were committed last night. I got
> errors from CVS. Somebody about CVS/EmptyDir not being found.
Never seen that one. Why don't we find out *why* that error occurs, then
simply assuming that it is because of split repositories in your working
directory?
> I can't be
> the only person seeing these problems, because last week Roy was willing
> to put the htdocs stuff back into the apache tree to fix these problems.
Who knows why Roy wanted to combine them. That is a separate issue, and now
that I'm thinking about, I'd rather see a better explanation from Roy on
what he believes the problem is. Until then, we shouldn't go and muck with
the htdocs. (read: -1 on Roy's move until we understand "why")
> > For example, I just checked out the htdocs tree into my Apache tree with the
> > following command:
> >
> > $ cvs -d :ext:gstein@dev.apache.org:/home/cvs co -d htdocs httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
> >
> > Now, I can go into the htdocs directory and update from there. Or I can even
> > update from the root of my Apache 2.0 tree and it will recurse into htdocs
> > and grab files from the other repository.
> >
> > What *doesn't* work is pulling a copy of Apache 2.0 and its docs from before
> > the split. To do that, I'd need to start with a fresh repository (where
> > htdocs isn't in the way and pointing elsewhere).
>
> I JUST did a completely fresh checkout of Apache against HEAD, and there
> is an htdocs directory.
There shouldn't be. Did you not use -P to prune empty directories? In my
.cvsrc, I have a line that contains "co -P -d" to ensure that empty
directories are always pruned.
> That means that when I went to execute the cvs
> command above, I get errors:
>
> Warning: Remote host denied X11 forwarding, perhaps xauth program could
> not be run on the server side.
> cvs server: existing repository /home/cvs/apache-2.0/htdocs does not match
> /home/cvs/httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
> cvs server: ignoring module httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
Yup. Symptomatic of not using -P.
> Now, if I remove htdocs from the Apache tree, I can successfully checkout
> htdocs. It looks like last night, I left off the trailing htdocs/
> directory from the httpd-docs-2.0 repository, which is what cause my
> problem.
Not sure how a trailing slash would affect anything. I set up my working
directories without trailing slashes, and it works fine.
> Regardless, the errors above are a problem. The docs have
> become a bigger hassle than they are worth right now.
I disagree. I've never seen so much change to the docs, until we broke them
out. The entire motivation for the split was to enable people to work on
them. And that has been *very* successful, IMO.
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a hassle here. About the only hassle is
the "make install" requiring us to have an htdocs directory.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: htdocs?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 12:17:09PM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 10:15:54AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > > From: rbb@covalent.net [mailto:rbb@covalent.net]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 10:10 AM
> > > >
> > > > Are we going to fix htdocs ever? It is seriously broken right now. I
> > > > agree with the goal for the htdocs sub-group, but I would really like
> > > > cvs update's to work properly.
> > >
> > > Is there a reason we aren't using the cvs import facility against
> > > the httpd-docs-x.x/htdocs tree?
> >
> > cvs import is generally bogus. That isn't what we want.
>
> How is cvs import bogus? We are already using it for PCRE, MM, and
> hopefully EXPAT. The only difference is that we don't want people
> committing directly to the 2.0/htdocs directory, we want them to use the
> htdocs repository.
Nah, those were simply added/copied into the repository. They are not a "cvs
import" in the official sense of the word. e.g. no vendor branch or any crap
like that.
We had a cvs import of APR in the SVN repository for a while. It sucked.
Hard. Karl was always needing to go into the repository and muck with the
files to fix stuff. We punted on all that, and just used the "second
repository" feature like what we do with htdocs.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: htdocs?
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 10:15:54AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > From: rbb@covalent.net [mailto:rbb@covalent.net]
> > > Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 10:10 AM
> > >
> > > Are we going to fix htdocs ever? It is seriously broken right now. I
> > > agree with the goal for the htdocs sub-group, but I would really like
> > > cvs update's to work properly.
> >
> > Is there a reason we aren't using the cvs import facility against
> > the httpd-docs-x.x/htdocs tree?
>
> cvs import is generally bogus. That isn't what we want.
How is cvs import bogus? We are already using it for PCRE, MM, and
hopefully EXPAT. The only difference is that we don't want people
committing directly to the 2.0/htdocs directory, we want them to use the
htdocs repository.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: htdocs?
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> cvs import is generally bogus. That isn't what we want.
>
> What is wrong with checking out the htdocs tree into the Apache 2.0 tree?
> That ought to work quite fine. I see no problem with htdocs.
Last night, I took a tree that didn't have the htdocs directory, and
checked out the httpd-docs-2.0 into htdocs. This morning I tried to
update that tree to get the fixes that were committed last night. I got
errors from CVS. Somebody about CVS/EmptyDir not being found. I can't be
the only person seeing these problems, because last week Roy was willing
to put the htdocs stuff back into the apache tree to fix these problems.
> For example, I just checked out the htdocs tree into my Apache tree with the
> following command:
>
> $ cvs -d :ext:gstein@dev.apache.org:/home/cvs co -d htdocs httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
>
> Now, I can go into the htdocs directory and update from there. Or I can even
> update from the root of my Apache 2.0 tree and it will recurse into htdocs
> and grab files from the other repository.
>
> What *doesn't* work is pulling a copy of Apache 2.0 and its docs from before
> the split. To do that, I'd need to start with a fresh repository (where
> htdocs isn't in the way and pointing elsewhere).
I JUST did a completely fresh checkout of Apache against HEAD, and there
is an htdocs directory. That means that when I went to execute the cvs
command above, I get errors:
Warning: Remote host denied X11 forwarding, perhaps xauth program could
not be run on the server side.
cvs server: existing repository /home/cvs/apache-2.0/htdocs does not match
/home/cvs/httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
cvs server: ignoring module httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
Now, if I remove htdocs from the Apache tree, I can successfully checkout
htdocs. It looks like last night, I left off the trailing htdocs/
directory from the httpd-docs-2.0 repository, which is what cause my
problem. Regardless, the errors above are a problem. The docs have
become a bigger hassle than they are worth right now.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: htdocs?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 10:15:54AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: rbb@covalent.net [mailto:rbb@covalent.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 10:10 AM
> >
> > Are we going to fix htdocs ever? It is seriously broken right now. I
> > agree with the goal for the htdocs sub-group, but I would really like
> > cvs update's to work properly.
>
> Is there a reason we aren't using the cvs import facility against
> the httpd-docs-x.x/htdocs tree?
cvs import is generally bogus. That isn't what we want.
What is wrong with checking out the htdocs tree into the Apache 2.0 tree?
That ought to work quite fine. I see no problem with htdocs.
Ryan? *What* problem are you seeing? You say "seriously broken". What does
that mean?
For example, I just checked out the htdocs tree into my Apache tree with the
following command:
$ cvs -d :ext:gstein@dev.apache.org:/home/cvs co -d htdocs httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
Now, I can go into the htdocs directory and update from there. Or I can even
update from the root of my Apache 2.0 tree and it will recurse into htdocs
and grab files from the other repository.
What *doesn't* work is pulling a copy of Apache 2.0 and its docs from before
the split. To do that, I'd need to start with a fresh repository (where
htdocs isn't in the way and pointing elsewhere).
In any case... I don't see a problem. Ryan: please explain.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RE: htdocs?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> From: rbb@covalent.net [mailto:rbb@covalent.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 10:10 AM
>
> Are we going to fix htdocs ever? It is seriously broken right now. I
> agree with the goal for the htdocs sub-group, but I would really like
> cvs update's to work properly.
Is there a reason we aren't using the cvs import facility against
the httpd-docs-x.x/htdocs tree?
Re: htdocs-cvs rsync? (was Re: htdocs?)
Posted by Sander van Zoest <sa...@covalent.net>.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Sander van Zoest wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > Are we going to fix htdocs ever? It is seriously broken right now. I
> > agree with the goal for the htdocs sub-group, but I would really like
> > cvs update's to work properly.
> Speaking of the docs, could we export via rsync the cvsroot for the docs
> as well, right now I get the cvs files for the code, but it would be nice
> if I could have the cvs files of the docs in the same manner.
Hmm.. after further investigation looks like the docs *are* cvsroot files.
I guess the fact that it didn't have a -cvs it through me off. This might
cause some confusion for others as well.
--
Sander van Zoest [sander@covalent.net]
Covalent Technologies, Inc. http://www.covalent.net/
(415) 536-5218 http://www.vanzoest.com/sander/
htdocs-cvs rsync? (was Re: htdocs?)
Posted by Sander van Zoest <sa...@covalent.net>.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> Are we going to fix htdocs ever? It is seriously broken right now. I
> agree with the goal for the htdocs sub-group, but I would really like
> cvs update's to work properly.
Speaking of the docs, could we export via rsync the cvsroot for the docs
as well, right now I get the cvs files for the code, but it would be nice
if I could have the cvs files of the docs in the same manner.
Cheers,
--
Sander van Zoest [sander@covalent.net]
Covalent Technologies, Inc. http://www.covalent.net/
(415) 536-5218 http://www.vanzoest.com/sander/