next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
Wassuuup,
(Sorry I missed the meeting today, sounds like you guys had some fun.)
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Edward Dyer wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Christopher Majka wrote:
>
> > Hi Mark et. al,
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Mark Ronald Rushton wrote:
> >
> > > My best recollection is that we asked that some exploration be done for
> > > a method to turn RCS "off" for those who didn't need / want it.
> > >
Yes we, (speaking as an editor) did. i think this was done towards the
end of our dissusion when we were all getting a little tired of talking
about RCS, and just wanted to leave the subject.
> > > Also, my understanding is that currently directories that are created via
> > > FTP do not create RCS directories.
> >
> > Sadly, this is not so. I just created a directory remotely via FTP (in an
> > IP directory). As soon as I install (again remotely via FTP) an HTML file
> > - presto - the RCS directory with its *.html,v file appeared. ;-<
>
Of course. The question is weather a directory created by ftp and
untouched by I)nstall will retain it's RCS virginity. Speaking from a
technical point of view, I would have to say yes, but as with a lot of
things arround here, there look to have been a few undocumented cases
where things seem to defy reality. I'm sorry I can't provide an exact
date and full-header information, though.
> Chris is correct. In the Tech Meeting today we were
> considering whether there are two distinct groups of users, i.e.
> those who manage their website using the text interface, and those
> who do everything by ftp...
>
Again, sorry I missed the meeting, I bet I could of shaved at least a
half an hour off by ending this debate. Yes, (as in indicating a
possitive responce, otherwise know as true or correct), there are. Case
in point, new VDN, notionalpest.ca (play on National Post). The guy not
only uses only ftp, but Netscape's publisher function at that. When new
IPs sign up, they get an admintration account, that is, an account that
is part of whatever IP they set up. They're told how to ftp in, like any
other web provider would do (oh wait, we're not just any other web
provider are we), and told that there is a 00ip directory when they first
log in (through ftp) and that all of there web pages go in there. They're
not told about the fact that they can log in through telnet, for the fact
that the public_html directory will then be created, something which we
do not want to happen.
> If there is a significant group in the latter category, and I
> haven't seen any statistics to verify that, and if there is not a
> significant overlap between the groups, then perhaps simply turning
> off the creation of RCS files for ftp users might work.
>
I have a cat, my cat has hair, I have hair too. I have a shirt. Now, it's
a well know fact that cats shed their hair much more than people do. I've
never seen any research being done on my cat in specific, but I'm pretty
sure that most of the hairs on my shirt are from my cat. But of course, I
can't be totally sure.
> However, and it is a BIG HOWEVER, there would be a real problem if a
> user does both ftp and text editing, because then the RCS files
> could get out of sync with the working files. Then there is a real
> danger of losing the latest version, as the RCS system "checks out"
> its stored version to be updated when editing in the IP directory.
> Some of you will have noticed that this often happens if you try
> renaming files in an RCS controlled directory.
>
Clap clap clap calp clap.
> > > I believe (wrongly?) that this was a feature we endorsed as a general
> > > solution, the reasoning being that people who use FTP to maintain their
> > > sites would have an off-site backup and therefore RCS would not be
> > > useful to them. RCS was maintained for (I)nstall method of maintaining
> > > IPs.
> >
Not really a feature. It's like saying a gun has a safety feature in that
it has the ability to be pointed away from you (no harm intended, just an
illustration). RCS doesn't know about ftp, and ftp's keeping it's mouth
shut so that it doesn't get found out. All RCS knows about it pico and
when it's been acctivated by the co/ci command.
> > This would be a good approach. Would it be possible to implement RCS so
> > that, until such time as one attempted to edit a file via PICO, no RCS
> > equivalent would be created?
>
Consider it done.
> To go beyond the simple solution of "no RCS for ftp'd files" will
> require a more substantial investigation of the interaction of the
> various parts of the system. However, that would be the only truly
> "safe" solution, as far as I can tell so far..
>
You must never cross over to the dark side. Only the people who are
comitted to ftp are truly free. As long as you only use ftp, your files
should be fine, but if you stray and use the text interface, I'm affraid
all is lost. You might aswell consider your file lost and hold a decent
farwell ceremony.
Seriously, if a file was ever edited with pico through the test interface
you will undoubtedly run into problems in the futur if you try to use ftp.
> > My largere question, however, is this: I may be somewhat out of touch with
> > recent technical changes at the CCN, but I wondered if someone from the
> > tech team could summarize what RCS was currently being used for?
> >
One word: ...
> > My (perhaps also faulty) memory seems to indicate that:
> >
> > 1) It locks files during editing (hence no possibility of 2 editors
> > simultaneously editing it;
>
> Yes. This also means that if a user ftp's out their site, then it
> is locked until they ftp it back in.
>
Que?
> > 2) Keeps a cryptic *.html,v file recording all editing changes. Handy in
> > theory but in the absense of a front-end to the sytem of marginal use;
>
> Not cryptic, it's a cumulative record of changes to the file,
> including additions and deletions. It is formatted so that RCS's
> check out function and RCS's checkin function can track the changes,
> and re-create any version of the file. (check out sort of in the
> sense of a library book, for exclusive editing by one user; check in
> returns the record to the "repository". The version that is being
> worked on while you edit is not publicly viewable until you finish
> the edit, and check the file back in.)
>
Woohoo, isn't that what a tape backup does for the most part, a backup?
The fact that it retains the "life and times" of a file is amazing in
itself, but just like when the total of Microsoft's web site were down
for 24+ hours, who cares?
Now before you say "the editor", if they had made changes to the file and