Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<39A42785.F35F82DF@ece.gatech.edu>
Date:	Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:35:33 -0400
From:	Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject:	Re: FAQ-O-Matic (Was: perl-5.6.0 ready for test! (IMPORTANT READ THIS
	MESSAGE ON MAINTAINER STATUS!))
References:	<8600BF007197944F8DD3906E40CB428005D83C AT itdomain001 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au> <20000822204228 DOT B770 AT cygnus DOT com> <39A3238D DOT 3C8A6160 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <1845-Wed23Aug2000130354+0100-starksb AT ebi DOT ac DOT uk> <20000823151941 DOT G5205 AT cygnus DOT com>

Chris Faylor wrote:
> 
> I agree that there must be active moderators.  Maybe FOM isn't the ideal
> solution.  I can also easily see this becoming a Q&A forum, especially
> given our disappointing experience with the 'todo' list.
> 
> Probably, we could get the same behavior by maintaining the documents in
> CVS and giving specific people checkin privileges.

[1] e.g. a FAQs module, with documents that can be turned into html
(nightly as part of the cygwin build process?) -- or are html themselves
-- and served via http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin/FAQs/ ?

> >Chris, is there an issue with resources?  The server will have to do
> >quite a bit more than spit out html.  Will Red Hat, Inc. come after
> >you if someone posts warez or DVD decryption source or ...

Yikes. I hadn't even thought of that...

> 
> The machine is pretty beefy but the network connection isn't.  In fact,
> I've been contemplating elminating direct cygwin downloads from sources.
> They are pretty much swamping the connection.

If you do this, then the /private/ section needs to be mirrored as well.
I have no evidence, but I believe that the bulk of the the downloads are
folks trying to test the latest & greatest -- e.g. my cvs stuff, or
Michael's sumo-rpm stuff...

Otherwise, I've no objections to turning off direct downloads.

> 
> >I'm not looking forward to moving the existing Cygwin FAQ to FOM -- it
> >would be a big job at first.  But if it helps us deliver a better
> >product, I'm all for it.  (Maybe nobody was thinking about the
> >existing FAQ, but if it works well for Cygwin Apps, then it's probably
> >a good idea for all of it.)
> 
> I wasn't really thinking about the existing FAQ but it's a good point.
> Consistency would be nice, especially if we have something that works.
> 
> We probably should look into some automated method for updating the FAQ
> so that your changes don't require a manual "send mail to DJ" step.

If the main cygwin FAQ was also part of this hypothetical FAQs module in
CVS, as in point [1] above, then this problem is solved, too.

--Chuck

- Raw text -