On May 11, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> ________________________________
>> From: Dave Fisher <[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]
>> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 2:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: Feedback on the CMS
>>
>>
>> On May 11, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Joe,
>>>
>>> On May 11, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>
>>>> With 1100 builds so far the ooo-site CMS instance
>>>> is only 350 builds behind www.apache.org as the
>>>> most-used CMS tree so far. I monitor the CMS logs
>>>> daily to evaluate usage and this project publishes
>>>> about as often as all our other projects combined,
>>>> which really makes me wonder where we'd be here if
>>>> the org had never created the CMS in the first place.
>>>
>>> I wonder too, but it would have been very painful.
>>>
>>> The enhancements made to the build process over the last year have made
>>> this use possible.
>>>
>>>> The ooo-site is far and away the largest instance at
>>>> over 9GB total. The reason I'm writing here is to
>>>> ask general questions about user satisfaction with
>>>> the CMS:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Is there any aspect of the CMS that needs immediate
>>>> improvement?
>>>
>>> I would like read_text_file to be able to handle BOM characters without
>>> issue.
>
>
> The CMS now ignores BOMs.
Cool. That was easy.
my $BOM = "\xEF\xBB\xBF";
s/^$BOM//;
>
>
>>>
>>>> 2) Are you satisfied with the workflow, or are there areas
>>>> that could stand improvement?
>>>
>>> Pretty much am.
>>>
>>>> 3) Is there anything that should be done to encourage more
>>>> users who are not committers to use the CMS to submit patches
>>>> to the list?
>>>
>>> Direct submission of the patch to BZ or JIRA including name, etc.
>>> Configured on a project by project basis.
>
>
> Yeah well no ;-). Nice idea, just tricky to implement easily
> across both bug trackers. I'll think about it more as time goes on.
>
>>>
>>>> 4) Are there any UI features you'd like to see implemented,
>>>> either in the web interface or the publication script?
>>>
>>> Warnings when
>>>
>>> (a) a staging build is in process.
>>> (b) when the change is in lib or templates and might require more than an
>>> instant to stage.
>>
>>> (c) when there are unpublished staged changes and who is responsible. This
>>> allows co-ordination.
>
>
> This week I've added support for (a) to the publishing script.
> (b) I'm not quite sure how I'd implement in the webui, but agree
> something along those lines would be interesting. For (c) maybe
> some svn log call will suffice.
>
>
> Thanks for the reply!
>
You're welcome!
Thanks for the quick action on BOM.
Regards,
Dave
