[Asterisk-doc] I'm thinking that FTP makes more sense for Volume One than CVS does

[jim at digitalchemy.ca]

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 über-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:

> 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 at 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 at lists.digium.com
> >>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-doc
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Doc mailing list
> Asterisk-Doc at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-doc
> 
> 


-- 
Jim Van Meggelen
DigitAlchemy
416-574-3164
www.digitalchemy.ca
jim at digitalchemy.ca


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-doc/attachments/20041007/c6b93c47/attachment.html