On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Peter Cowburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 26 February 2015 at 15:40, Paul Dragoonis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have been out of the country on business and my php.net environment >> setup >> is back home on my laptop. I'm wishing there was an easy way to set up a >> VM >> + php.net mirror setup on a box so I could have done it on my client's >> machine, but that's a different conversation altogether. >> > > Setting up a php.net website mirror, for development, these days is as > simple as git clone and using the built-in web server. Playing around with > the various generated files (e.g. those on master, that get rsync'd to > mirrors) is a little more fuss, but not much more than cloning master, > running the scripts and cp-ing to your web clone. > Can you elaborate on this? There needs to be a .php script on master, which creates a .json file which is rsynced to mirrors. I need to get this .php script in the repo somehow. > > That said, it would be nice to have a VM or something (I've been thinking > about this for the docs) to download and magically have a development env > all set up. > It would be worth while investment of our (the web team's time) i'm sure! It would make the contribution barrier lower. > > >> >> The code was already submitted a while back for this, but there's still a >> few blockers for me. >> 1) I can commit into the website repo, but I can't commit into the ' >> master.php.net' repo. >> 2) If I'm not granted commit access to master.php.net, then I need to be >> able to make a Pull Request to it. The problem here is we don't have the >> '' >> master.php.net' repository on github so I can't PR against it. >> > > Not being able to submit a pull request isn't much of a blocker. We worked > for years with patches attached to emails. (This sounds far more blunt, as > I'm reading this back, than I intended!) > > Apologies if I simply missed it, do you have an up-to-date patch for the > different git repos that we can look over? If it's only on your laptop back > at home, we can wait. > I have the patch, it was submitted months ago via email and nobody committed it for me :-). I'm happy to rebase on top of the latest repo HEADs since it's been a while of course. > > >> >> Can someone sort this out either my commit karma, or github repos so I can >> progress? > > > I'm sure it's not a problem to grant you karma, but even if it was there > are still plenty of people who do have karma and can commit patches. > Karma or PR (for master repo) - let me know what you wanna do, as long as it's my name on the commit then it doesn't matter to me how it got there. > > >> >> Many thanks, >> Paul >> >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Eli <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I'd like to make the point, once again, that we are supposed to be >> > moving away from this system altogether :) >> > >> > For months now we've been waiting for the 'new system' that completely >> > removes this task from us. (In fact I've been waiting to submit my own >> > conference while 6-7 have come through), just because I didn't want to >> > add to a system that was on the verge of being removed. >> > >> > So I'll ask again. Can we get the new code pushed live that >> > automatically does the conferences by Joind.in? As it's the 'end goal' >> > anyway, it solves this issues mentioned here, and ... everyone has >> > already said yes. >> > >> > Eli >> > >> > >> > On 2/26/15 3:49 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote: >> > > On 26 February 2015 at 08:29, Stelian Mocanita < >> > [email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> Would it make sense to extend the tool so when you select CFP and >> > >> Conference as categories to ask for both dates and content? Right now >> > the >> > >> organisers have to return after end of CFP and provide new content >> and >> > we >> > >> have to update it. I do not necessarily have an issue with updating >> the >> > >> entries, but I would so love to automate this and do it once and once >> > only. >> > >> >> > >> Thoughts? >> > >> >> > > I think we should be having entirely separate entries for a CFP >> versus a >> > > conference announcement, rather than going back and editing a CFP >> entry >> > > once it is closed (and we've been given updated text). Conflating the >> > two >> > > types of entries doesn't make much sense, to me. >> > > >> > > >> > >> Stelian >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Hannes Magnusson < >> > >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Stelian Mocanita >> > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >>>> Hello everyone, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> What would be a good way to deal with the CFP / Conference date? >> Most >> > >> if >> > >>>> not all of the conferences have different dates, and organisers >> submit >> > >> it >> > >>>> all at once. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Is there any decent way we can work around this? Maybe add a CFP >> date >> > >>> and a >> > >>>> conference date to the news item? >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> The dates definitely should be in the news entry itself - otherwise >> > >>> the organizers are simply being mean to the people reading the entry >> > >>> :/ >> > >>> >> > >>> Originally when I cared for markup it was all semantically tagged >> and >> > >>> pretty using microformats and eRDF, which exposed hCalendar entries >> > >>> which could be easily imported as they contained location and dates >> > >>> and descriptions and what not. Shame that became uncool. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> -Hannes >> > >>> >> > >> > -- >> > | Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW | >> > >> > >> > >> > >
