From owner-freebsd-www Sat Jan 4 04:21:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id EAA15948 for www-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 04:21:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ki1.chemie.fu-berlin.de (ki1.Chemie.FU-Berlin.DE [160.45.24.21]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id EAA15939 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 04:21:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by ki1.chemie.fu-berlin.de (Smail3.1.28.1) from mail.hanse.de (193.174.9.9) with smtp id ; Sat, 4 Jan 97 13:21 MET Received: from wavehh.UUCP by mail.hanse.de with UUCP for www@FreeBSD.ORG id ; Sat, 4 Jan 97 13:21 MET Received: by wavehh.hanse.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA23640; Sat, 4 Jan 97 13:08:42 +0100 From: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer) Message-Id: <9701041208.AA23640@wavehh.hanse.de> Subject: Re: FreeBSD GNATS-related CGI scripts To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 13:08:41 +0100 (MET) Cc: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de, mbarkah@hemi.com, deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org, www@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <26064.852374818@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Jan 4, 97 02:46:58 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-www@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > What's the police to add things to the CVS tree? I feel a bit > > uncomfortable to add masses of CGIs to the CVS repository that gets > > distributed to all people who really want the FreeBSD source > > tree. Maybe keeping www/ and src/ in the same CVS tree is not the > > right thing to do in the long term? > > This isn't a problem at all. Our CVS repository is split into 3 > different parts: src, ports and www. You don't get them all in one > piece, so if you don't want www then you simply don't have to take it. > Easy. Please, feel free to use the www sub-collection as it was > meant to be used! ;-) At least CTM delivers the full repository. Will take your advice nothingtheless, I hope John will speak up regarding the other scripts. Currently, a move of a CGI script to the CVS tree requires all references to it from WWW pages to be updated. What was the original reason not to put all CGIs in the same directory? When we get to-be-compiled CGIs, we'll have to use some more complicated mechanism than just checkout into the working dir of Apache anyway. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://cracauer.cons.org Fax +49 40 522 85 36