Yes, indeed, that's what we want to do. And that's the info I'm trying to get from Chris, i.e., the instructions for how to do that since he set up the site.
Gj On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: > On 02/15/2017 01:37 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > > The Plugin Portal will be outside of Apache, please let's keep focus in > > this discussion on the website. We have hundreds of tutorials in HTML > that > > we need to transfer to netbeans.apache.org. What is the simplest way to > do > > that? > > put them in the incubator-netbeans-website.git repository? I assume > that's why we have it :) (remember it needs to go into the asf-site > branch to be published) > > With regards, > Daniel. > > > > > Gj > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> On 02/15/2017 01:31 PM, Christian Lenz wrote: > >>> Really? Beacuse of security issues? Millions or more websites using a > >> server side language, doesn't matter which one, PHP, Node or whatever. > >>> Sure there are often problems but come one, we should care about to > have > >> mechanism to prevent worst case scenarios. For example for the plugin > >> center, > >>> we need REST services and sure you can write them in Java or PHP or C# > >> or whatever, but for this, we need server side languages. > >>> > >>> That sounds that we will not have a plugin center anymore and I think > >> this is not an option. > >>> PHP is not unsecure in general. I depents on what you use, how do you > >> write your code and how the server looks like. > >>> Sry for the words but this is really not a reason. Maybe you are > against > >> PHP ok fine, we can use whatever we want on the server side. The > PicoCMS is > >> a complete CMS but flat, it will give you some basic CMS stuff, to don't > >> write it by your own but without the fullstack stuff from WordPress or > >> Joomla or whatever. > >>> > >> > >> I don't set policy, I merely relay it :) > >> But let's not conflate the entire Netbeans service with the project web > >> site. > >> > >> If there is a need for a REST/whatever service, we can provision a > >> machine for that specifically. It will just not be called > >> netbeans.apache.org or netbeans.org - those are reserved for static > >> content only. > >> > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> Chris > >>> > >>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2017 um 13:23 Uhr > >>>> Von: "Daniel Gruno" <humbed...@apache.org> > >>>> An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org > >>>> Betreff: Re: Aw: Re: Status of Apache NetBeans process > >>>> > >>>> On 02/15/2017 01:17 PM, Christian Lenz wrote: > >>>>> The thing is, with a Backend we are more flexible. What are the > >> reasons why not using PHP for example? This goes to Daniel. > >>>> > >>>> There are several reasons, mostly security related (we don't want a > bug > >>>> in some script to deface all our web sites all of a sudden). We serve > up > >>>> petabytes of data off our main servers from millions of users - > exposing > >>>> this to PHP is just not something we're willing to do when we are not > in > >>>> charge of what gets put on the web sites. > >>>> > >>>> If you want to write in markdown, get a static site generator like > >>>> pelican to convert it to html, and we can have a buildbot job > >>>> automatically rebuild the site when something changes. That's how most > >>>> projects do things. *There should be no need whatsoever for dynamic > >>>> scripting of anything on the site*. The only exception we have on our > >>>> servers is the download mirror picker, which has been vetted by the > ASF > >>>> staff. > >>>> > >>>> So, in short: PHP is not going to happen on our servers. > >>>> > >>>> With regards, > >>>> Daniel. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Afaik you can use HTML inside MD files, and I think PicoCMS can > handle > >> HTML as well, but for this I have to check it. > >>>>> For the plain pages, maybe it is the best to have html files, but we > >> have to use only the content. The wrapper around should be similiar to > the > >> new style and not to the old one. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2017 um 12:29 Uhr > >>>>>> Von: "Geertjan Wielenga" <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> > >>>>>> An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org > >>>>>> Betreff: Re: Aw: Status of Apache NetBeans process > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think the solution we should use should be one where we can simply > >> copy > >>>>>> and paste existing HTML-based tutorials and other documents from > >>>>>> netbeans.org to netbeans.apache.org. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If we were to have to spend time converting HTML documents to some > >> variant > >>>>>> of markdown, we'll be busy a very long time indeed. Ideally, both > >> HTML and > >>>>>> markdown would be supported. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The simpler the solution the better, with the focus being on how to > >> get the > >>>>>> hundreds of existing NetBeans tutorials, all in HTML and all with > >> relative > >>>>>> references to images, into a structure in netbeans.apache.org. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Gj > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org > > > >> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 02/14/2017 07:09 PM, Peter Hansson wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think you're on the same page here. PicoCMS is, as I understand > >> it, a > >>>>>>>>> basic flat-file static site generator. pages would be stored in > >> git or > >>>>>>>>> svn and built by a buildbot on change. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'm not sure that wording is correct. PicoCMS requires a PHP > enabled > >>>>>>> server. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It builds content on-the-fly from .md files. Therefore, there's no > >>>>>>> buildbot. > >>>>>>>> PicoCMS will render the .md file into html every time the page is > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> requested, afaik. > >>>>>>>> By default there's no caching going on. Don't think it is really a > >>>>>>> problem. > >>>>>>>> Seems to be very fast even so. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ah, PHP is not going to be an option here. we serve up static files > >> only. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> With regards, > >>>>>>> Daniel. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Compare to Jekyll which has no webserver at all and works as you > >>>>>>> describe, > >>>>>>>> i.e. it needs something external to actually convert from markup > >> language > >>>>>>>> into html. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Pros and cons, I guess. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> /Peter > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > > > >
