Re: New Projects for sources.redhat.com

[Christopher Faylor <cgf@alum.bu.edu>]

On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 06:55:01AM -0500, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
>On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:55:19AM +0800, David Teigland wrote:
>> 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.  
>
>This was because we insisted that dm appeared as an independent project - 
>evms uses it without using lvm/lvm2 and we did not want to antagonise
>evms users by lumping it with lvm/lvm2.
>
>> In the same way we want to have:
>> sources.redhat.com/gfs/
>> sources.redhat.com/bedrock/
>> sources.redhat.com/gnbd/
>> sources.redhat.com/gulm/
>
>Or how about:
>   sources.redhat.com/cluster/bedrock/
>   sources.redhat.com/cluster/gfs/
>   sources.redhat.com/cluster/gnbd/
>   sources.redhat.com/cluster/gulm/
> 
>Depends whether separate CVSROOTs are *necessary*, and (as discussed on 
>irc yesterday) whether there's an internal cvs with some form of automatic
>syncing to the public one, or whether internal cvs and public cvs are
>maintained separately.

What's an "internal CVS"?  Isn't cluster-list an internal Red Hat
mailing list which is being exposed to a public mailing list?

Are you discussing Red Hat policies on an external list?

cgf