Re: [CentOS-docs] Access request to page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir
Hi Ed,
I appreciate you considering my suggestions. Comments below.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Ed Heron e...@heron-ent.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 19:40 -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
The use of mv -v ...{,_} is too clever for this kind of educational
document, and should be changed to spell out the full mv command. I
get what you're doing there, but the purpose of the document is not to
teach clever uses of bash, it's to make it obvious to people that
you're renaming the file. It will trip up the flow of reading for all
but the most knowledgeable users, and users who don't understand it
will be totally lost.
I'm not trying to be clever, I just don't like to type it twice if I
can avoid it and the typing the higher the chance for a typo. I don't
have a problem having both forms. I'll add it and see what you think.
Thanks for incorporating that. However, I think having both forms is
even more confusing. I really do like your bash shortcut, but it
simply doesn't belong in a document about apache. Maybe there's
another page, like BashTipsAndTricks, that it would fit on better?
Any time you need to stop and say hmm, what is going on there,
that's not related to the topic at hand, it only slows and confuses
the learning process. You may think it's obvious, but that's quite
firmly in the bash guru category.
In most documents and scripts, I usually spell out the short form
options as well, such as using --verbose. Short forms save you
typing, but documentation should not trip people up if they don't know
what the option means.
Normally, I expect, if people don't understand a command, they will
refer to the man page for the command. However, to my constant
disappointment, I understand that many people aren't looking for long
term knowledge improvement, they are looking for a recipe to blindly
follow.
The comment about long-form options was just an aside, and not my main
point, but thanks for taking a look at it.
Also, I find the use of _ to be obtuse and highly error prone if one
were to actually run a server that way. It's far more obvious to use
disabled, which makes it very clear that those items are disabled.
It may work for you but only because that's a convention you came up
with so you're used to it, but we're not in dos 8.3 days with
filenames, so why not be more descriptive?
Having both forms should make it plain that people can use any
convention they wish. System administration is not a fixed target.
Like many things, there are many ways to accomplish the same result.
When approaching a system that someone else is administrating, we should
try to maintain the existing conventions instead of forcing our own
ideas onto a server for which we are not the primary responsible party.
A wiki page on the CentOS site conveys a certain level of authority.
With that authority, one should recommend a consistent and obvious way
to do things, since as you say, many people just want a recipe (and
there's nothing wrong with that). Being verbose removes any ambiguity
about what is going on, and potentially sets a good practice for
people to follow.
Using the _ relies too heavily on knowing that the httpd.conf file
uses a pattern match for *.conf only, and if I was not thoroughly
familiar with the httpd.conf file setup and logged into a server the
had some files with .conf, and others with .conf_, it could be
easy to miss. A big fat label of disabled makes it quite clear
what's going on.
In a document like this, the proportion of typing you are saving is
insignificant. If someone has an existing convention they use, they
won't need to read this document. And, as you say, people are free to
set their own conventions, and you would be free to do the same in
your internal policies, but for an educational document, it's better
to spell things out.
In section 6.4, is there a reason not to make a vhosts.conf file
that contains the Include in the in the conf.d/ directory, instead
of appending to the httpd.conf, or do you run into ordering issues
there? I try to avoid changing the distro files if possible.
Sections 6 and 7 are optional. There are certainly arguments against
customization. In the past, upgrades might have replaced all files
including configuration files. In that case, creating a vhosts.conf
file in the conf.d directory to separate the directive would have been a
must. However, the Linux distributions I have used for the past decade
or so have avoided replacing existing configuration files, expecting
they might be customized.
That said, I like the suggestion. It would allow for the virtual host
files to be packaged into an RPM file that could be installed on
multiple web hosts.
❧ Brian Mathis
I think the only potential problem with this would have been if the
vhosts were somehow order-specific as they relate to the rest of the
httpd.conf file, but since they always come last (except that the
first vhost
Re: [CentOS-docs] Access request to page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 13:07 -0600, Ed Heron wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 19:40 -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
The use of mv -v ...{,_} is too clever for this kind of educational
document, and should be changed to spell out the full mv command. I
get what you're doing there, but the purpose of the document is not to
teach clever uses of bash, it's to make it obvious to people that
you're renaming the file. It will trip up the flow of reading for all
but the most knowledgeable users, and users who don't understand it
will be totally lost.
I'm not trying to be clever, I just don't like to type it twice if I
can avoid it and the typing the higher the chance for a typo. I don't
have a problem having both forms. I'll add it and see what you think.
In most documents and scripts, I usually spell out the short form
options as well, such as using --verbose. Short forms save you
typing, but documentation should not trip people up if they don't know
what the option means.
Normally, I expect, if people don't understand a command, they will
refer to the man page for the command. However, to my constant
disappointment, I understand that many people aren't looking for long
term knowledge improvement, they are looking for a recipe to blindly
follow.
Also, I find the use of _ to be obtuse and highly error prone if one
were to actually run a server that way. It's far more obvious to use
disabled, which makes it very clear that those items are disabled.
It may work for you but only because that's a convention you came up
with so you're used to it, but we're not in dos 8.3 days with
filenames, so why not be more descriptive?
Having both forms should make it plain that people can use any
convention they wish. System administration is not a fixed target.
Like many things, there are many ways to accomplish the same result.
When approaching a system that someone else is administrating, we should
try to maintain the existing conventions instead of forcing our own
ideas onto a server for which we are not the primary responsible party.
In section 6.4, is there a reason not to make a vhosts.conf file
that contains the Include in the in the conf.d/ directory, instead
of appending to the httpd.conf, or do you run into ordering issues
there? I try to avoid changing the distro files if possible.
Sections 6 and 7 are optional. There are certainly arguments against
customization. In the past, upgrades might have replaced all files
including configuration files. In that case, creating a vhosts.conf
file in the conf.d directory to separate the directive would have been a
must. However, the Linux distributions I have used for the past decade
or so have avoided replacing existing configuration files, expecting
they might be customized.
That said, I like the suggestion. It would allow for the virtual host
files to be packaged into an RPM file that could be installed on
multiple web hosts.
❧ Brian Mathis
I made the changes I've described about a week ago. Brian, does that
satisfy your concerns? Does anybody else agree with Brian? Have the
changes I've made make it easier to read the document?
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Access request to page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 19:40 -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
The use of mv -v ...{,_} is too clever for this kind of educational
document, and should be changed to spell out the full mv command. I
get what you're doing there, but the purpose of the document is not to
teach clever uses of bash, it's to make it obvious to people that
you're renaming the file. It will trip up the flow of reading for all
but the most knowledgeable users, and users who don't understand it
will be totally lost.
I'm not trying to be clever, I just don't like to type it twice if I
can avoid it and the typing the higher the chance for a typo. I don't
have a problem having both forms. I'll add it and see what you think.
In most documents and scripts, I usually spell out the short form
options as well, such as using --verbose. Short forms save you
typing, but documentation should not trip people up if they don't know
what the option means.
Normally, I expect, if people don't understand a command, they will
refer to the man page for the command. However, to my constant
disappointment, I understand that many people aren't looking for long
term knowledge improvement, they are looking for a recipe to blindly
follow.
Also, I find the use of _ to be obtuse and highly error prone if one
were to actually run a server that way. It's far more obvious to use
disabled, which makes it very clear that those items are disabled.
It may work for you but only because that's a convention you came up
with so you're used to it, but we're not in dos 8.3 days with
filenames, so why not be more descriptive?
Having both forms should make it plain that people can use any
convention they wish. System administration is not a fixed target.
Like many things, there are many ways to accomplish the same result.
When approaching a system that someone else is administrating, we should
try to maintain the existing conventions instead of forcing our own
ideas onto a server for which we are not the primary responsible party.
In section 6.4, is there a reason not to make a vhosts.conf file
that contains the Include in the in the conf.d/ directory, instead
of appending to the httpd.conf, or do you run into ordering issues
there? I try to avoid changing the distro files if possible.
Sections 6 and 7 are optional. There are certainly arguments against
customization. In the past, upgrades might have replaced all files
including configuration files. In that case, creating a vhosts.conf
file in the conf.d directory to separate the directive would have been a
must. However, the Linux distributions I have used for the past decade
or so have avoided replacing existing configuration files, expecting
they might be customized.
That said, I like the suggestion. It would allow for the virtual host
files to be packaged into an RPM file that could be installed on
multiple web hosts.
❧ Brian Mathis
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] Access request to page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir
Requesting access to edit page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir Looking to make some small edits for clarity. ❧ Brian Mathis ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Access request to page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 10:42 -0400, Brian Mathis wrote: Requesting access to edit page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir Looking to make some small edits for clarity. ❧ Brian Mathis Yay, somebody read it! What are you suggesting? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Access request to page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Ed Heron e...@heron-ent.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 10:42 -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
Requesting access to edit page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir
Looking to make some small edits for clarity.
❧ Brian Mathis
Yay, somebody read it!
What are you suggesting?
The use of mv -v ...{,_} is too clever for this kind of educational
document, and should be changed to spell out the full mv command. I
get what you're doing there, but the purpose of the document is not to
teach clever uses of bash, it's to make it obvious to people that
you're renaming the file. It will trip up the flow of reading for all
but the most knowledgeable users, and users who don't understand it
will be totally lost.
In most documents and scripts, I usually spell out the short form
options as well, such as using --verbose. Short forms save you
typing, but documentation should not trip people up if they don't know
what the option means.
Also, I find the use of _ to be obtuse and highly error prone if one
were to actually run a server that way. It's far more obvious to use
disabled, which makes it very clear that those items are disabled.
It may work for you but only because that's a convention you came up
with so you're used to it, but we're not in dos 8.3 days with
filenames, so why not be more descriptive?
In section 6.4, is there a reason not to make a vhosts.conf file
that contains the Include in the in the conf.d/ directory, instead
of appending to the httpd.conf, or do you run into ordering issues
there? I try to avoid changing the distro files if possible.
❧ Brian Mathis
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
