Brendan Eich wrote:
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?
I haven't used Moz that way, and jwz was dead-set against it. Maybe we're just grumpy old men. But first, let's agree that the domain name should be developer.mozilla.org -- that's what inspired the DevMo name, not "Mo" as short for "More".
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.
We already have to maintain despot. Unless you are going to pile future unknown requirements on it, I don't see how we'll fail for want of a better despot. Either we'll limp along, or we'll improve despot -- or later (that's the key -- not right now!) we will lift up the server content on really big jacks, slide out despot and even CVS, and drop the content back down on something better. Later.
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?
What are people using on sites of the same scale as ours? Tell me more, fast. And remember not to multiply risk gratuitously at the front of the schedule.
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.
You had better care, and make a concrete proposal, otherwise CVS wins, because it's here now and we use it for the website. Get real!
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".
Nonsense. We don't have the same web content we did in 1998. We don't have the same layout engine, either. Things change. Put some constructive energy into this, and be practical. Just complaining about CVS or asserting that no one else uses it is not enough.
Note: I'm not saying CVS is "enough". We use other tools layered on it. It gives us just the bare bones versioning for files (as you note, not for directories) that we need to be able to diff and patch documents among branches, and the like. We don't want to lose that in the quest for fancier replacements. Hence my mention of Subversion -- but is it ready for prime time?
The www.mozilla.org website is a navigational ball of mud, and we've never got a serious body of contributors working on it.
What does that have anything to do with CVS? The people who didn't follow README-style and precedent would have done likewise using any other revision control system.
/be _______________________________________________ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
