Re: [Spi-private] Git repositories, website, puppet

Hi

there have been some changes on SPI machines in the last days, and I
thought I should tell more people about it, someone out there may be
interested in this. :)

You can find http://git.spi-inc.org/gitweb/ - a gitweb representation of
some git repositories run by SPI.

The first repository to note is board.git, which is intended to grow
into a place where board members (and project associates) put files
related to the SPI workings that don't fit elsewhere. You will see that
there is a projects/ subdir, every SPI project *can* store SPI<->project
related data there and the project advisor can write into their
project's own subdir, not elsewhere.

Right now you can only find the SPI letterhead we use as a template for
new letters as well as one letter send on behalf of Debian there, but
hey, we just started it.

As you might have heard in various places already, we want to go away
From our old Plone install and use something else. While the plans for
this aren't entirely new, we finally got movement into it, thanks to
Bdale and Jonathan. So the website.git is the second repository you can
find there.

Currently the repository is limited to board members and a group
"webteam" to write. The latter can take non-board people, just currently
there are none. Read access is again open for the whole world.

Should you be interested in write access get in contact with
webmaster(at)spi-inc(dot)org - but you probably want to do that after you
provided some patches they accepted already. Better is if they plead you
to join the group so they can stop merging from you. :)

(There is still a lot missing from the old page. Get in contact with
webmaster@ or online in #spi (if one happens to be around there) to
find out how/if you can help converting.)

And finally you can also find something named puppet.git there. This is
what we SPI admins use to configure our machines with. Well, it is in
development, I just started with it, there are still large chunks of
setup to be made part of puppet, but it is already in use, and I intend
to have as much as possible done via puppet.

Note that we are far from being puppet experts, we usually just hit it,
make faces or throw bombs and stones at it until it agrees to do what we
want from it, but we give no guarantee for the sanity of what we have
there. Still, should you be enough out of your mind to take a look and
see something that can be done better, I am always happy to merge
changes in. In the same way as above with the webteam, this might be
your start of getting into the SPI admin team. :)

--
bye, Joerg
Naturally; worms that don't know what they are doing end up as
fish bait, instead of getting invited into weird math experiments.
-- Lars Wirzenius

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Joerg Jaspert <joerg(at)spi-inc(dot)org> wrote:
> You can find http://git.spi-inc.org/gitweb/ - a gitweb representation of
> some git repositories run by SPI.
>
> The first repository to note is board.git, which is intended to grow
> into a place where board members (and project associates) put files
> related to the SPI workings that don't fit elsewhere. You will see that
> there is a projects/ subdir, every SPI project *can* store SPI<->project
> related data there and the project advisor can write into their
> project's own subdir, not elsewhere.
>
> Right now you can only find the SPI letterhead we use as a template for
> new letters as well as one letter send on behalf of Debian there, but
> hey, we just started it.

Kudos! I'd expect this to be a splendid place to put documents that
are to be public, including constitutional materials, resolutions,
minutes, and such.

My local LUG has been using a wiki to capture board minutes for a
couple years now, which, after reflection, seems rather inferior to
storing them as Plain Old Text files, version controlled.

> As you might have heard in various places already, we want to go away
> From our old Plone install and use something else. While the plans for
> this aren't entirely new, we finally got movement into it, thanks to
> Bdale and Jonathan. So the website.git is the second repository you can
> find there.

I think you'll want to be pretty "intentional" about usage of the
repository for this.

Personally, I have wound up using 2 repositories to manage my personal web site:

- There's a repo which captures the "source code" form of my web
site. I write it
using DocBook, and have a makefile which transforms it into the "deployable"
version. The makefile includes a "make install" target, which
copies the HTML
form over to...

- A repo which captures "target form" of things. This notably
includes the HTML form,
but also png/jpeg files, some additional HTML that is
hand-generated, and some
CGI-like stuff.

The first repo is never, in any fashion, visible to the world. The
second periodically gets "git pushed" over to my web hosting provider
to indicate the new form of the site.

An important thing is to be clear on what parts are "source" and what
parts are "target" that are to be directly visible. It's annoying to
receive patches for HTML when that's not intended as an editable form.

The "web team" doubtless needs to determine how they wish to manage
the site, and the relationship between that and what is deployed.
Hopefully these aren't too much more than a Makefile apart :-).
--
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html

>> Right now you can only find the SPI letterhead we use as a template for
>> new letters as well as one letter send on behalf of Debian there, but
>> hey, we just started it.
> Kudos! I'd expect this to be a splendid place to put documents that
> are to be public, including constitutional materials, resolutions,
> minutes, and such.

No.

They are on the website. This is for stuff that has no good place there.

> The first repo is never, in any fashion, visible to the world. The
> second periodically gets "git pushed" over to my web hosting provider
> to indicate the new form of the site.

> An important thing is to be clear on what parts are "source" and what
> parts are "target" that are to be directly visible. It's annoying to
> receive patches for HTML when that's not intended as an editable form.

> The "web team" doubtless needs to determine how they wish to manage
> the site, and the relationship between that and what is deployed.
> Hopefully these aren't too much more than a Makefile apart :-).

Umm, I think its pretty clean and easy as it is.
There is one repo which is the source. And thats it. Anything that goes
on the website is in there. And the site is build out of that when
pushed. Whoever sends patches for the html has either not ever looked
before doing that - or its so small noone cares and one of the webteam
just does the change in the source and be done with it.

--
bye, Joerg
>From a NM after doing the license stuff:
I am glad that I am not a lawyer! What a miserable way to earn a living.