Understood, OK Tom. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 4/5/16, 12:10 PM, "Tom Barber" <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> wrote: >Yeah, I'm not suggesting we switch any time soon. > >My viewpoint is thus: we can do a better job with content, look and feel >and the maintenance side. > >Personally, I find the CMS hard to use, maybe its just me, who knows. So, >my suggestion is purely do some POC work to come up with what may, or may >not be a better solution. If the workflow and tech is acceptable, then >build out the site in the new tech, it can be demoed on GH pages or >wherever in the interim, and finally, when we're happy with the content, >the theme and the ability to update it, then... and only then do we change >it. > >From my own opinion, I want to put some more free time into improving the >site, but I feel that it would be a much quicker and more efficient process >if the stuff wasn't inside CMS, that is all. > >Tom > >On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Chris Mattmann <chris.mattm...@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> Tom, my comment here is that we tried to do the exact >> same thing in Summer 2014 on XDATA. Just note that >> “dummy site” is now what we have in our operational >> site for Apache OODT. I think we have just only recently >> come to a point where it’s more stable (we don’t have >> people like Sebb coming externally saying our links don’t >> work). >> >> Now you are proposing to change the site again, which >> design wise is fine by me (though shows how much I know >> since I liked SK’s old site even - and the new site started >> by the next generation also looks nice too). However, >> stability wise it’s not fine by me unless *the entire site* >> is migrated, and until we run a link checker against it >> long before turning on the switch to move over to it. >> >> No one is clamoring for a website redesign - it’s mostly >> been discussion led by you and commented on by Val, and >> Lewis. >> >> My 2c. >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> — >> Chris Mattmann >> chris.mattm...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 4/5/16, 8:55 AM, "Tom Barber" <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> wrote: >> >> >Okay here's what I propose. Apache CMS will be retired, not any time >> soon, but at some point in the medium term future. ASF Infra offer >> gitsubpub/svnsubpub as the standard for website publishing and we(I?) want >> something more useable for non webdevs. Thats not necessarily code free, >> but certainly an easy process for people to upload new content. >> >My suggestion is that I knock up a dummy replacement site in Jekyll, that >> migrates across a couple of the pages and some dummy blog content, and I'll >> come back and demonstrate the user publishing flow, at which point we can >> have a discussion as to whether its something we pursue, or not. >> > >> > >> >Sound like a plan? >> > >> >Of course in the mean time, if anyone else has any suggestions for a >> "dynamic" static website, speak up! >> > >> >Tom >> > >> > >> >On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> >> wrote: >> > >> >Indeed Val >> >Ease of use is something I'm trying to achieve because it makes it easier >> for everyone to help maintain our resources with minimum effort. >> > >> >In Jekyll (if that was a chosen solution Markdown is entirely optional, >> you can just as easily publish HTML content as markdown, I just mentioned >> it as an easy barrier to get people to write blog posts, but there are a >> bunch of HTML generating apps on the market, of you could use the WP >> editor, and hit the source button and copy the content from WP to Jekyll, >> not great always the most obvious workflow, but would do the job. >> > >> >Also, not tried it, but Prose.io gives you a MD WYSIWYG editor for >> github, so assuming we were running the fork -> pull request model, you >> could edit the OODT site using Prose on Github and just push over a pull >> request with the changes made. >> > >> > >> > >> >Prose seems to support basic formatting and inserting of images, once a >> website template is designed I would expect contributers to do any more >> anyway, unless they wanted to, content should be about writing a blog post >> of page and hitting the go button. >> > >> > >> >A quick google also reveals some Word to Markdown tools, I've not used >> them either, but I guess they would do a job. >> > >> >Tom >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Mallder, Valerie < >> valerie.mall...@jhuapl.edu> wrote: >> > >> >You are absolutely right, in markdown you would be missing images. My >> objection to using markdown is having to learn a new language syntax for >> styling the text. I have no objection to having a static site. I just want >> it to be easy to use and not require that you have to spend time learning >> something new. If it takes too much time to do (because you have to learn >> some new stuff in order to do it) you may find that people will put it on >> their todo list but never end up getting to it because they are too busy >> working on higher priority tasks in their day jobs. I think your primary >> goal (when choosing what you want to do) should be to add as little work as >> possible to people's plates. That's all. If there are any WYSIWYG editors >> out there that have the option to do a "save as" to markdown format that >> would be optimal. But I don't know if there are any. >> > >> > >> > >> >Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com>) >> >________________________________ >> >From: Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> >> >Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2016 7:17:42 PM >> >To: dev@oodt.apache.org >> >Subject: Re: OODT Website Changes (Redux) >> > >> >Also, (playing devils advocate) if it's a word doc why can't you just copy >> >and paste it into a markdown file? The only major thing you'd be missing >> >is any images :) >> > >> >Another plus to a static blogging site is, if you decide it sucks in a few >> >years time, you just have some html to move somewhere else, it's just a >> >static website, if you decide WordPress sucked or infra said they'd host >> >it, then down the line changed their mind, you'd have a much bigger task >> >on your hands. >> > >> >Tom >> >On 3 Apr 2016 00:07, "Tom Barber" <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> wrote: >> > >> >> Hey Val, >> >> >> >> You can write HTML and a bunch of other stuff, but I'm trying to offer >> up >> >> a solution that is easy for people to deploy and develop on outside of >> the >> >> Apache infrastructure, and markdown, being just text is easy to deploy. >> >> Also Wordpress etc require databases and backing infra where as Jekyll >> is >> >> purely static HTML by the time it is deployed. >> >> >> >> I have no idea if Infra would support wordpress anyway, I doubt it, when >> >> they said they were retiring Apache CMS, it wasn't like "oh but don't >> worry >> >> folks, you can stand up a wordpress website", I could be wrong, but that >> >> was my impression. >> >> >> >> At the end of a day, creating a blog post that looks like: >> >> >> >> >> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/maciakl/Sample-Jekyll-Site/master/_posts/2012-02-10-code-snippets.markdown >> >> >> >> is much quicker than writing a bunch of HTML, but the Apache CMS is >> also a >> >> bit of a lie, because if you think you don't have to write HTML because >> its >> >> a CMS, you're sorely mistaken! ;) >> >> >> >> Tom >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Mallder, Valerie < >> >> valerie.mall...@jhuapl.edu> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I am not familiar with Jekyll, but I disagree with using markdown. Why >> >>> must we write in any kind of markup language? That would suck. Why not >> just >> >>> use a better CMS? There are plenty out there. I personally develop >> websites >> >>> in Wordpress. It's free and very easy to use. You can edit posts in a >> >>> WYSIWYG editor. You can also copy-paste from a Word doc into the post. >> Just >> >>> my opinion. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com><http://www.good.com >> >) >> >>> ________________________________ >> >>> From: Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> >> >>> Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2016 6:45:21 PM >> >>> To: dev@oodt.apache.org >> >>> Subject: OODT Website Changes (Redux) >> >>> >> >>> Alright folks, >> >>> >> >>> Most peope who have been on the list for a while know we moved from the >> >>> most static of static websites to Apache CMS a while ago to allow for >> more >> >>> regular updating and maintenance of the website. >> >>> >> >>> Lewis then put a bunch of work into creating a template for the CMS >> >>> website >> >>> and we revamped a lot of the content, but the CMS has a bunch of issues >> >>> both in the ease of developing a website and also in maintenance so the >> >>> Infra team are retiring it. >> >>> >> >>> My personal opinion(having done some of this in my day job, and >> discussed >> >>> similar on some other ASF projects) is we migrate the website to >> gitsubpub >> >>> and Jekyll. >> >>> >> >>> This will give us the ability to easily stand up the existing website >> on >> >>> our own laptops, or development servers make changes and deploy them. >> Also >> >>> without the templating system that Apache CMS enforces upon you, its a >> >>> far >> >>> quicker development cycle. >> >>> >> >>> Of course we could just use standard HTML & Javascript, but part of the >> >>> reason I'd like to use Jekyll is the fact users can create content >> using >> >>> Markdown syntax instead of HTML and Javascript. Jekyll is a static >> >>> blogging >> >>> platform, so its designed for frequent updating, and as people may have >> >>> noticed I've been blogging OODT stuff on my personal blog because the >> CMS >> >>> is a pain to update. >> >>> >> >>> Has anyone got an opinion? It feels like we did stage one which was >> make >> >>> the website easier to update, but stage two is to make the process a >> lot >> >>> easier, and standardised. >> >>> >> >>> Cheers >> >>> >> >>> Tom >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >>
