Gregor J. Rothfuss wrote:
Torsten Schlabach wrote:
But doco could be quite interesting from a community point of view as
well
...
Sure. It would add a lot of credibility if Lenya could finally eat its
own
dogfood. And even more, if other Apache projects would use Apache
Lenya to
edit their sites. But why don't (didn't) we convince Forrest to render
off
JCR instead of a SVN export. (IIRC they cannot really work directly on
SVN, can they?) And why is it taken for granted that Apache websites have
to render with Forrest at all? What value does Forrest add in the process
compared to just taking Lenya. It could still be XDoc though.
(I know this a bit provocative to the Forrest guys. Don't want to step on
anyones toes! But I ask myself that question.)
it's not a forrest requirement. documents need to be in svn for easy
recovery in the course of a system failure. lenya/forrest therefore need
a way to write to svn.
This is a very grey area. Cocoon has recently (experimentally) started
using Daisy for its docs. When the orginal discussion was underway this
point was raised, but it was never resolved. At present there are no
plans to get the docs back into SVN.
As for convincing Forrest to render of JCR instead of SVN. I know almost
nothing of JCR, but the locationmap in Forrest allows us to render of
*any* repository that is accessible via an http or cocoon request. So
there is no problem with this from a technical perspective.
Another reason for us Forrest folk insisting on SVN support is because
many devs (some in Forrest, but others across other projects we have
talked to), want to keep everything in SVN where they can continue to
use their existing tools to edit (vi, emacs, svn etc).
Ross
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
