Steam ahead captain

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016, Tom Barber <[email protected]> wrote:

> Okay here's what I propose. Apache CMS will be retired, not any time soon,
> but at some point in the medium term future. ASF Infra offer
> gitsubpub/svnsubpub as the standard for website publishing and we(I?) want
> something more useable for non webdevs. Thats not necessarily code free,
> but certainly an easy process for people to upload new content.
>
> My suggestion is that I knock up a dummy replacement site in Jekyll, that
> migrates across a couple of the pages and some dummy blog content, and I'll
> come back and demonstrate the user publishing flow, at which point we can
> have a discussion as to whether its something we pursue, or not.
>
> Sound like a plan?
>
> Of course in the mean time, if anyone else has any suggestions for a
> "dynamic" static website, speak up!
>
> Tom
>
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Tom Barber <[email protected]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
>
>> Indeed Val
>>
>> Ease of use is something I'm trying to achieve because it makes it easier
>> for everyone to help maintain our resources with minimum effort.
>>
>> In Jekyll (if that was a chosen solution Markdown is entirely optional,
>> you can just as easily publish HTML content as markdown, I just mentioned
>> it as an easy barrier to get people to write blog posts, but there are a
>> bunch of HTML generating apps on the market, of you could use the WP
>> editor, and hit the source button and copy the content from WP to Jekyll,
>> not great always the most obvious workflow, but would do the job.
>>
>> Also, not tried it, but Prose.io gives you a MD WYSIWYG editor for
>> github, so assuming we were running the fork -> pull request model, you
>> could edit the OODT site using Prose on Github and just push over a pull
>> request with the changes made.
>>
>>
>> Prose seems to support basic formatting and inserting of images, once a
>> website template is designed I would expect contributers to do any more
>> anyway, unless they wanted to, content should be about writing a blog post
>> of page and hitting the go button.
>>
>>
>> A quick google also reveals some Word to Markdown tools, I've not used
>> them either, but I guess they would do a job.
>>
>> Tom
>> ​
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Mallder, Valerie <
>> [email protected]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
>>
>>> You are absolutely right, in markdown you would be missing images. My
>>> objection to using markdown is having to learn a new language syntax for
>>> styling the text. I have no objection to having a static site. I just want
>>> it to be easy to use and not require that you have to spend time learning
>>> something new. If it takes too much time to do (because you have to learn
>>> some new stuff in order to do it) you may find that people will put it on
>>> their todo list but never end up getting to it because they are too busy
>>> working on higher priority tasks in their day jobs. I think your primary
>>> goal (when choosing what you want to do) should be to add as little work as
>>> possible to people's plates. That's all. If there are any WYSIWYG editors
>>> out there that have the option to do a "save as" to markdown format that
>>> would be optimal. But I don't know if there are any.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Tom Barber <[email protected]
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2016 7:17:42 PM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
>>> Subject: Re: OODT Website Changes (Redux)
>>>
>>> Also, (playing devils advocate) if it's a word doc why can't you just
>>> copy
>>> and paste it into a markdown file?  The only major thing you'd be missing
>>> is any images :)
>>>
>>> Another plus to a static blogging site is, if you decide it sucks in a
>>> few
>>> years time,  you just have some html to move somewhere else,  it's just a
>>> static website,  if you decide WordPress sucked or infra said they'd host
>>> it, then down the line changed their mind,  you'd have a much bigger task
>>> on your hands.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>> On 3 Apr 2016 00:07, "Tom Barber" <[email protected]
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hey Val,
>>> >
>>> > You can write HTML and a bunch of other stuff, but I'm trying to offer
>>> up
>>> > a solution that is easy for people to deploy and develop on outside of
>>> the
>>> > Apache infrastructure, and markdown, being just text is easy to deploy.
>>> > Also Wordpress etc require databases and backing infra where as Jekyll
>>> is
>>> > purely static HTML by the time it is deployed.
>>> >
>>> > I have no idea if Infra would support wordpress anyway, I doubt it,
>>> when
>>> > they said they were retiring Apache CMS, it wasn't like "oh but don't
>>> worry
>>> > folks, you can stand up a wordpress website", I could be wrong, but
>>> that
>>> > was my impression.
>>> >
>>> > At the end of a day, creating a blog post that looks like:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/maciakl/Sample-Jekyll-Site/master/_posts/2012-02-10-code-snippets.markdown
>>> >
>>> > is much quicker than writing a bunch of HTML, but the Apache CMS is
>>> also a
>>> > bit of a lie, because if you think you don't have to write HTML
>>> because its
>>> > a CMS, you're sorely mistaken! ;)
>>> >
>>> > Tom
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Mallder, Valerie <
>>> > [email protected]
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I am not familiar with Jekyll, but I disagree with using markdown. Why
>>> >> must we write in any kind of markup language? That would suck. Why
>>> not just
>>> >> use a better CMS? There are plenty out there. I personally develop
>>> websites
>>> >> in Wordpress. It's free and very easy to use. You can edit posts in a
>>> >> WYSIWYG editor. You can also copy-paste from a Word doc into the
>>> post. Just
>>> >> my opinion.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>)
>>> >> ________________________________
>>> >> From: Tom Barber <[email protected]
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>
>>> >> Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2016 6:45:21 PM
>>> >> To: [email protected]
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
>>> >> Subject: OODT Website Changes (Redux)
>>> >>
>>> >> Alright folks,
>>> >>
>>> >> Most peope who have been on the list for a while know we moved from
>>> the
>>> >> most static of static websites to Apache CMS a while ago to allow for
>>> more
>>> >> regular updating and maintenance of the website.
>>> >>
>>> >> Lewis then put a bunch of work into creating a template for the CMS
>>> >> website
>>> >> and we revamped a lot of the content, but the CMS has a bunch of
>>> issues
>>> >> both in the ease of developing a website and also in maintenance so
>>> the
>>> >> Infra team are retiring it.
>>> >>
>>> >> My personal opinion(having done some of this in my day job, and
>>> discussed
>>> >> similar on some other ASF projects) is we migrate the website to
>>> gitsubpub
>>> >> and Jekyll.
>>> >>
>>> >> This will give us the ability to easily stand up the existing website
>>> on
>>> >> our own laptops, or development servers make changes and deploy them.
>>> Also
>>> >> without the templating system that Apache CMS enforces upon you, its
>>> a
>>> >> far
>>> >> quicker development cycle.
>>> >>
>>> >> Of course we could just use standard HTML & Javascript, but part of
>>> the
>>> >> reason I'd like to use Jekyll is the fact users can create content
>>> using
>>> >> Markdown syntax instead of HTML and Javascript. Jekyll is a static
>>> >> blogging
>>> >> platform, so its designed for frequent updating, and as people may
>>> have
>>> >> noticed I've been blogging OODT stuff on my personal blog because the
>>> CMS
>>> >> is a pain to update.
>>> >>
>>> >> Has anyone got an opinion? It feels like we did stage one which was
>>> make
>>> >> the website easier to update, but stage two is to make the process a
>>> lot
>>> >> easier, and standardised.
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers
>>> >>
>>> >> Tom
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
*Lewis*

Reply via email to