On 20 Apr 2005, at 00:20, Ross Gardler wrote:
ok, you mean replacing the SVN repository and only use Daisy?The content for our site needs to be in SVN. That's how the ASF and board maintain their oversight, they know where to look for IP 'owned' by Apache. If we start storing it elsewhere, we remove the ability for Apache members to know where ASF content is.
OK
I don't know of any "regulation" in this perspective, other than that PMCs are required to provide oversight for the projects they're managing, and that ideally, this should be done using "familiar" tools like mailing lists & SVN.
Given the abundance of tools for managing website content, I think the only remaining common denominator is: the de-facto standard "site publishing protocol" is committing a bunch of HTML files into an SVN repo.
There's a difference between storing site content in SVN, and how you manage site sources. I'm not advocating one scenario or another, but as long as the sources are properly oversighted due to mailing lists notifications, I reckon the requiredness of SVN is only because that's the common denominator in case of calamities: when site sources are stored in SVN, people can easily resurrect a site in case servers are swapped around. If the SVN repo isn't wedged, of course. ;)
</Steven> -- Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
