Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote on Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 17:02:19 -0300: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:49:52PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > > @all: > > > > Sorry but IMHO this process failed. Just today evening (Hamburg > > time) someone has published again website changes. > > > > If we rely on a process that is so fragile, then IMHO we shouldn't > > do this. Because there will be always somebody: > > > > - who doesn't know this > > > > - who isn't aware of the consequences of her/his changes > > (do you all know that a change on a NL webpage will also > > publish everything else in staging?) > > > > - who hasn't seen a "please don't publish the website until further > > notice" mail > > (to be honest, I haven't seen a clear note that is > > forbidden at the moment, too) > > > > - etc. > > > > The other solution would be to completely not change anything (incl. > > no commits) to the website until the release is, e.g., 1 hour away > > which is also nothing I would like to see as it's not flexible > > enough. > > > > Are there other opinions/suggestions? > > The ideal would be if the CMS could have an option to lock publishing so
I think you can hackily achieve that right now by adding a nonexistent path to extpaths.txt (see cmsref for details on the latter). CC please > that no-one publishes the site, not even by mistake. Sure someone from > knows if this is possible or just an ideal, though impossible solution.
