Two reasons: - One step less for publishing the site. Because the whole process is so complicated and annoying people tend not to do anything. That's bad. - I don't like storing generated files in version control. It makes no sense IMO.
I agree that reverting changes may be a little bit more difficult, but with ForrestBot regenerating the site is a no-brainer. No hard feelings if we go back to committing the generated site to SVN but I don't like it. On 13.10.2005 09:48:32 David Crossley wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > > Using Forrest 0.7 to create the xml.apache.org site and having had good > > experiences for the XML Graphics and FOP sites, I'm going to change the > > xml.apache.org deployment to use (local) ForrestBot. > > Great. > > > The generated site > > will not be committed to the SVN repository anymore, but directly > > uploaded using SCP to cvs.apache.org:/www/xml.apache.org. If someone > > doesn't agree with that, please tell me. > > What is the reason for doing that? > > For any projects that i have worked on, we have > remained with storing the generated docs in SVN. > It seems more efficient. > > Also that is what infra wanted. It makes it possible > to restore a site easily. The people at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > are trying to work out better ways of publishing sites, > but not happened yet. > > There are a couple of problems with doing stuff via scp. > One is that it uploads every doc, even if not changed. > Also it is harder to revert a change if we stuff up. > > Even though i don't agree with using SCP, i am not > going to suggest changing it. What you have done does > work okay and xml-site is a small site and is not > receiving lots of changes. > > Still, i am interested to know why you think SCP > is better. > > -David Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
