From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9898 invoked by alias); 20 May 2004 01:55:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9838 invoked from network); 20 May 2004 01:55:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (218.186.56.102) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 May 2004 01:55:06 -0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (dell [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4K1tJsZ008040; Thu, 20 May 2004 09:55:20 +0800 Received: (from dct@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i4K1tJGE008038; Thu, 20 May 2004 09:55:19 +0800 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: dct set sender to teigland@redhat.com using -f Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:55:00 -0000 From: David Teigland To: fche@redhat.com, cluster-list@redhat.com Cc: overseers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: New Projects for sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <20040520015519.GA8005@redhat.com> References: <1084974363.3982.9.camel@dhcp64-191.boston.redhat.com> <20040519174504.GD25826@redhat.com> <1084991290.3982.118.camel@dhcp64-191.boston.redhat.com> <20040519183913.GE25826@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040519183913.GE25826@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-q2/txt/msg00306.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 02:39:13PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Hi - > > > At the moment, we have multiple independent cvs trees for the different > > elements. Can we have multiple cvs trees under a single sourceware > > project? > > I'm not aware of existing sourceware projects that use multiple CVSROOTs. > This is perhaps because of the degree of interlinking between CVS and the > rest of the system (email patch distribution, archiving, possible bugzilla, > etc.), or general system overhead. > > In general, we'd prefer not to fragment sourceware into too many tiny > projects unless absolutely necessary. For example, what sort of > administrative structure (group membership) differences do you forsee > between the subprojects? Currently we have: sources.redhat.com/dm/ sources.redhat.com/lvm/ sources.redhat.com/lvm2/ Each has its own page and CVSROOT. It sounds like these are managed under a single "group" administratively. In the same way we want to have: sources.redhat.com/gfs/ sources.redhat.com/bedrock/ sources.redhat.com/gnbd/ sources.redhat.com/gulm/ Each of these would have its own page and cvs tree that we'd want to import. These four could certainly be managed under a single group as well -- they are related to each other like the first three are. Also, in the same way that lvm & lvm2 share a common mailing list (linux-lvm), we'll probably want these later four to share a common mailing list (linux-cluster or something). (There may be one more we add to the list for the user space resource manager, I'm not sure; it may have a home already since it's been at Red Hat for a while.) -- Dave Teigland