Darryl Ross
Senior Network Engineer
OEG Australia
Email: darryl@oeg.com.au
Phone: 08 81228361
If you want to live up to the whole "There is more than one way to
~ do it" slogan, you have to give someone a swiss army chainsaw ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:51 am Post subject: [Asterisk-doc] I'm thinking that FTP makes more sense for Vo
You should still use CVS, just specify the '1-0' stable branch when you
checkout. The reason being bug and security fixes will be backported
from the HEAD branch to the STABLE branch.
Details on how to checkout the stable branch are on the download page at
http://www.asterisk.org
Sorry, I realize I didn't really clarify what I was talking about.
The instructions in volume one specify CVS for obtaining Asterisk.
Now that Asterisk is at v1.0, it makes sense to use FTP to download
it.
We'd still use CVS for the doc project.
On 7 Oct 2004 at 0:38, William Suffill wrote:
>Isn't it available by HTTP as it is in PDF or whatnot?
>_______________________________________________
>Asterisk-Doc mailing list
>Asterisk-Doc@lists.digium.com
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-doc
>
>
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:03 am Post subject: [Asterisk-doc] I'm thinking that FTP makes more sense for Vo
Brian,
What I want to do is take a position and argue a point of view.
What you are saying makes sense from the perspective of having the latest
patches and such, but CVS is generally popular in a development
environment.
FTP is the delivery mechanism that most people will expect to use.
Administrators all know FTP; I would suspect that CVS is a far less common
skill amongst Linux admins (you might argue that a good Linux admin should
know CVS, but I'm not so concerned about what skills people _should_ have,
what matters is what skills people _do_ have).
It seems a safe bet that having a 1.0 release is going create a whole new
group of people interested in downloading and installing Asterisk. Handling
the very different needs of these constituents may mean doing things that
aren't technically ideal, but are nonetheless required based on the
cultural environment.
The problem we have is this: Asterisk is still the exclusive domain of
the ?ber-geek. The question seems to be whether the use of CVS and such are
considered tests which must be passed for membership into the club, or
whether efforts need to be made to make entry easier. As an example, you
have advised me to "just specify the '1-0' stable branch when you
checkout", but I have tried that and met with no success. Since I do not
understand the CVS program well enough to troubleshoot, I am left with the
feeling that I do not qualify for entrance to the Asterisk club, by virtue
of my inability to comprehend CVS.
FTP and tar work fine, BTW.
I am possibly a good example of the new breed of Asterisk users. I come
from the world of PBXs, and I guess would qualify as a power-user when it
comes to Linux. Based on conversations I've had with people, I've concluded
that I am at the high end of the newbie skill set, but the low end of the
developer skill set. Frankly, even though I am assisting in writing the
documentation, I am actually also one of the people who needs it very badly
in order to hone my skills.
For me, FTP is a piece of cake; CVS is a annoying mystery. You might say
"just learn CVS", and on one level you'd be right, but on another level
what we will be doing is driving potential users away because of processes
that are not attractive to the average person.
It's a tough call between doing what is pure and good, versus doing what
stands the best chance of attracting an appropriate audience.
All that aside, I respect that the documentation needs to reflect what
exists, not what we want. I have removed my modifications to the document
with repect to FTP, and reverted back to the version which discusses using
CVS.
I vote that we document FTP, but I respect that the distribution mechanisms
for Asterisk via FTP may not yet be able to serve the need.
This is a topic worthy of debate, so let's get some opinions, rants and
such so we can form an informed view!
Regards,
Jim.
On 7 Oct 2004 at 1:53, Brian wrote:
Quote:
You should still use CVS, just specify the '1-0' stable branch when you
checkout. The reason being bug and security fixes will be backported
from the HEAD branch to the STABLE branch.
Details on how to checkout the stable branch are on the download page at
http://www.asterisk.org
jim@digitalchemy.ca wrote:
> Sorry, I realize I didn't really clarify what I was talking about.
>
> The instructions in volume one specify CVS for obtaining Asterisk.
> Now that Asterisk is at v1.0, it makes sense to use FTP to download
> it.
>
> We'd still use CVS for the doc project.
>
>
> On 7 Oct 2004 at 0:38, William Suffill wrote:
>
>
>>Isn't it available by HTTP as it is in PDF or whatnot?
>>_______________________________________________
>>Asterisk-Doc mailing list
>>Asterisk-Doc@lists.digium.com
>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-doc
>>
>>
>
>
>
What I want to do is take a position and argue a point of view.
What you are saying makes sense from the perspective of having the
latest
patches and such, but CVS is generally popular in a development
environment.
FTP is the delivery mechanism that most people will expect to use.
Administrators all know FTP; I would suspect that CVS is a far less
common
skill amongst Linux admins (you might argue that a good Linux admin
should
know CVS, but I'm not so concerned about what skills people _should_
have,
what matters is what skills people _do_ have).
It seems a safe bet that having a 1.0 release is going create a whole
new
group of people interested in downloading and installing Asterisk.
Handling
the very different needs of these constituents may mean doing things
that
aren't technically ideal, but are nonetheless required based on the
cultural environment.
The problem we have is this: Asterisk is still the exclusive domain of
the ?ber-geek. The question seems to be whether the use of CVS and
such are
considered tests which must be passed for membership into the club, or
whether efforts need to be made to make entry easier. As an example,
you
have advised me to "just specify the '1-0' stable branch when you
checkout", but I have tried that and met with no success. Since I do
not
understand the CVS program well enough to troubleshoot, I am left with
the
feeling that I do not qualify for entrance to the Asterisk club, by
virtue
of my inability to comprehend CVS.
Interesting that you couldn't follow directions posted not that long ago
when we branched... I've only ever used HEAD so I don't know how hard
the process is.
Quote:
FTP and tar work fine, BTW.
And a HTTP link is even better due to some firewall concerns. Plus there
is a chance that you can get other services that will cache copies
closer to the souce. Last I checked, some ISPs provide caches to help
make their upstream seem larger and would have the bennefit of reducing
some peoples server load. Of course you have to deal with what is
offered.
Quote:
I am possibly a good example of the new breed of Asterisk users. I
come
from the world of PBXs, and I guess would qualify as a power-user when
it
comes to Linux. Based on conversations I've had with people, I've
concluded
that I am at the high end of the newbie skill set, but the low end of
the
developer skill set. Frankly, even though I am assisting in writing
the
documentation, I am actually also one of the people who needs it very
badly
in order to hone my skills.
little point here, if you still think there is any newbie left in you,
your not yet a poweruser. Your developer skill set still doesn't get you
to poweruser status. I don't feel I am a power user yet as I am in an
enviroment where I can look at people who work in unix exclusively and
in university.
Quote:
For me, FTP is a piece of cake; CVS is a annoying mystery. You might
say
"just learn CVS", and on one level you'd be right, but on another
level
what we will be doing is driving potential users away because of
processes
that are not attractive to the average person.
Please find a different word than "attractive" there. Very little in
unix is "attractive" to a average person. Then again the average person
still can't figure out that no matter how attractive Outlook or
OutlookExpress is, it is not safe to run.
Quote:
It's a tough call between doing what is pure and good, versus doing
what
stands the best chance of attracting an appropriate audience.
I don't think the use of FTP, HTTP, or CVS is going to attract an
audience. The quality of the documentation in any other section is going
to be the attraction. The instructions in this regard just need to be
correct and easy to follow.
I hope this helps just a bit. Maybe it helps put a different perspective
on where we are and going.
--
Steven Critchfield <critch@basesys.com>
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum