Or a beverage store (http://www.bevmo.com/productlist.asp?area=home) -- what's wrong with that?
The whole "Mo'" thing meaning "More" is really cheesily American to other English speakers - those that understand it at all...
In the past, we've always used "Moz" as Mozilla's 'short name'. Why change?
As I understand it, despot's admin support doesn't let us do a load of things we'd want to - like delegation ("Bob, you can edit directory X, but not Y; Fred, you can edit Y and X but not Q"). Or if it does in theory, it doesn't scale.
It allows us to give access only to a list of people. That's good enough to start with. Let's not get too fancy yet.
The problem is that, if we want to get fancier, we have to write all the code ourselves. Which means it'll probably never happen.
CVS is also a particularly bad choice for a system where documents are going to be moving around a lot. Its limitations in that area are well-known.
Right, but what's better? Are we really going to jump on the Subversion bandwagon and multiply risks we have to take on just to do DevMo, apart from the repository risks, by the risk of not-CVS and newer-than-CVS?
"Mozilla must use the best open source solution to solve a well-understood problem." - Brendan Eich, original Mozilla Roadmap.
Is CVS really the answer to that question for website content management? If it is, why is no-one else using it?
- We have doctor (the "edit this page" link at the bottom of every page on http://www.mozilla.org/) for easy update -- but someone, as Asa said, should really extend doctor to use Mozilla's content-editable support. Myk?
This sounds like a re-inventing of the wheel to me.
Why? Doctor is here, it just needs new sidewalls.
While Doctor eases the pain (and is a great technical achievement), the general view I've been hearing is that editing the website using it is still like kicking a dead whale down a beach. This is due to the inherent limitations of web editing interfaces (bzbarsky is right here) coupled to the CVS backend.
Can we please use some content management software designed for managing web content? I don't give a stuff which one of the five thousand open source CMSes it is. But they all do the job they were designed to do better than CVS.
You mean like Zope, which last time this was tried, didn't keep version histories in any delta-encoded way, just blobs of old files in a db?
I _particularly_ didn't mention Zope on purpose - in fact, I said "I don't care which one it is", to prevent old Zope issues clouding the picture. It's two years later, an eternity in Internet time. I'm sure both Zope and it's many competitors have improved a lot since we last looked.
How much more risk are we adding? Remember, for independent events, the multiplication principle applies. If we are launching ASAP, why wouldn't we use what we have now?
Because that'll mean "what we have now" becomes "what we have forever".
The www.mozilla.org website is a navigational ball of mud, and we've never got a serious body of contributors working on it. Compared to the sites of many other projects, it sucks. We need to analyse why that is, and avoid making the same mistakes again. I assert CVS is part of the problem - we can argue that, fine, but even if everyone else disagrees with me, we need to learn what our mistakes were to avoid repeating them.
Gerv _______________________________________________ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
