On 12/03/15 07:36, Sergio Fernández wrote:
My vote goes to option 2, mainly because the compatibility with the
Apache Commons project site.
On 11/03/15 23:27, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]>
Gary, how would we fit into Commons website-wise while incubating?
Could we
still use the same system, but publish to
commonsrdf.incubator.apache.org
?
Good question! I know you can override a bunch of settings in your POM
but
I am not sure about publishing the site to a different host.
I have quite experience with that setup. So I'll check if we can build a
subsite in our temporal web space, and I'll be back with conclusions
during the weekend.
I'm assuming the website will be quite small and relatively stable once
it's all set up.
The choice should be whatever makes the long term running costs low if
the setup is all about the same.
I have only used CMS/perl for real; the CMS ability edit a page in the
browser to quickly fix the small things is great and anyone can do it.
If all the CMS choices have that, then I think I'm just -0.5 on raw
svnpubsub. ant - don't use it myself anymore. shell - not (easy on)
windows.
Which leaves:
1 CMS (default-Perl-build)
2 CMS (Maven-build)
Andy
