On 1 March 2015 at 20:45, Paul Dragoonis <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. > I can't grant you commit karma (would if I could!), but I can merge an updated patch. > > >> >> >>> >>> 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 | >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >
