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.
Yup.
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.
Well, there's either committing source documents + tools and notes on building, or committing the HTML files. Either can work, even with a wide range of tools.
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. ;)
See, I can't give a clear explanation of why SVN is required in this picture, it just feels to me that it is. You're right that mailing list notifications are an important part of the picture too.
Personally, I would prefer it that source content goes into SVN, rather than HTML, as the source is more useful long-term. However, so long as _something_ is there, I'm happy!
Regards, Upayavira
