Noel J. Bergman ha scritto: > Stefano, >> 2) internal mailing list feed. cons: it does not provide after-post >> editing and we would need a preview post to be approved and one to >> publish (means few days in delay for each change, at minumum) > > And separately, you've said: > >>> Simple solution: post the announcement as a draft to the dev@ list >>> for review. > >> This would make the workflow even more complex than now IMHO. > > How so? You are talking about a few days delay for each change. I have no > idea why, except that in your:
I mean that every time we need to publish a news using the mailing list solution we'll have to discuss a draft on the list, previously. A discussion means often some days before it is approved and we can send the final version to the announce list. If we have editing support, this delay can be skipped. >> 1) commit to an xml in svn >> 2) build the m2 site >> 3) commit the generated site to svn >> 4) svn up on minotaur > > you seem to be implying that the news items would be committed without > review, and then changed if necessary. I'm not considering that to be a > proper practice, even if we can change them later. We did this forever in the last 2 years. During #1 and #3 people can notice issues and say something, otherwise we fix it. As I said I think we are all trusted enough to take this risk: most news are because of released software or say something we already discussed and voted upon. I think that CTR is the right workflow in this case. We are trying to simplify the workflow, not to put in further complications/moderation levels. > I have separately asked Sam if he can syndicate directly from SVN content, > which would merge the blog and SVN based solutions, although I am also > asking if in the wider feed community, changing news items is a valid > practice. Even if it isn't, I'm not sure that matters for our purposes. > Nor do I believe we want to CTR our news items. At the least, commit for > review, and then move to an approved URL for publication after review. > > As I understand Sam, once the one-time setup would be performed, the > workflow would be: > > - commit news item to svn > - wait for it to appear on the web site > > But as Danny said, Sam knows more about this than any of us, so let's see > what he says. I thought that avoid the use of svn was one key to make it more agile for less active committers. As I said I (having everything checked out and updated and being agile with maven) have no problem with the current way we publish news, so Danny and other should say if using svn the way you are proposing accomplish their initial goals. In this scenario I don't see much difference in saying: let's change directly the http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/site/trunk/www/index.html file and let's add a cron for the "svn up" on minotaur. Stefano
