On Thursday, 26 January 2006, at 14:31:59 (-0800), Ben Rockwood wrote: > The old system had problems, sure, but having a local checkout of > the site allowed for very fast local changes to be made and checked. > When making graphical changes I want to make the first half of the > changes, check it, see that its right, then finish the work and > commit it. Additionally, having it in CVS allowed branching of the > site, massive overhaul changes that could be reviewed prior to > commit, and was a inheriently a good backup system.
Can't argue with any of that. It's true. However, given that XSM uses static pages and can be rsync'd at will, could not something similar be said of it? Your local copy could be considered a branch after turning off the rsync, could it not? For the record, I think the handling of the "transition" (and I use that term loosely) was piss-poor. Basically ripping the site out from under Ben with little commentary beyond "Hey, new system!" was extremely rude. It's very clear what happened and why. But it's over now, and I'm not sure there's much to be gained going back now. > It seems pretty cut and dry to me. The folks who used to work on > the site a lot (such as myself) have stopped, predominantely because > XSM is slow, and if you break the site (which has happened several > times) it takes a long time to get everything fixed and > re-regenerated. I've got massive changes to make to the site, but I > want to spend time working, not waiting. Here's my suggestion. We have the web site module in CVS, so use it. Redesign the living fuck out of the site to your heart's content. Once it's done and ready, let us see it. If it kicks the snot out of the current site, we switch. > We rarely make big sweeping changes around here, so if we're going > to start some big changes it seems to me, at least, to be an ideal > time to just get it all over with. We're *always* making big sweeping changes around here! The only thing is that it's usually done with almost no discussion, apart from perhaps some talk on IRC while most of us on this side of the planet are asleep. > Moving the site, changing SCM's (if we choose to, sounds like we > won't), changing CMS's, etc, etc, just lumping these together and > getting it over with now rather than incrementally doing things > seems like a prudent option to consider. I think the focus needs to be on the most pressing issue, and right now that's CVS access. The natives are restless; I'd like to have a response for them that doesn't include "SF sucks" or "wait while we decide 15 other things first." On Thursday, 26 January 2006, at 17:27:20 (-0600), Ibukun Olumuyiwa wrote: > I *really* like Joomla. Pound-for-pound the best CMS out there. Having experience with about a bajillion CMS's including C-Arbre, MoinMoin, Dokuwiki, JSPWiki, WikiWiki, Tikiwiki, Bitweaver, Zope, MediaWiki, Rife, and even Mambo (of which Joomla is a fork), I can say without a doubt that Joomla is *not* pound-for-pound the best CMS out there. Or anywhere else. Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see." -- Taoist Proverb ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
