Re: [E-devel] [e-users] [website] cms?
Having it handled by CVS instead of a webgui-CMS doesn't mean to have no CMS at all. There are some CM-systems out there that can create the content out of simple text files with a simple markup language. This would allow to keep the CVS structure and have people to write articles without having to mess around with web developing. There's an even more interesting project, called WCV (web content viewer). It's basically a CMS that creates content out of text files with a basic markup. The cool thing is, that it even uses SVN (or CVS) metadata to track revisions and so on. It supports RSS and some stuff like this, but is still not functional enough to be used directly. Anyway - the concept is interesting and something like this might be a good choice. Here's the link: http://web-content-viewer.org/ On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 9:23 PM, dan sinclair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2-Aug-08, at 2:55 PM, Sthithaprajna Garapaty wrote: I'm not saying having a CMS will suddenly bring people to write. That's a separate problem. I think it will not BLOCK people from writing. There's a difference. There are various avenues we can pursue to attract writers. Bounties, request for articles on the front page, etc can easily attract writers. Also, we need to have a strict no drinking and writing policy. Nothing we have now blocks people from writing (and this is coming from the guy that wrote a _lot_ of documentation for Ewl and the EFL). Use your blog. Use the wiki. Everything is available. If people wanted to write they'd be doing it already. If we have to pay them, then I'd say they're just in it for the money. Probably not the type of community we want to foster. dan - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] [e-users] [website] cms?
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:18:23 -0500 Nathan Ingersoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: i agree here. i like our fairly flat (and lax) access structure. if we trust you to go writing bits of e.org's website - we trust you to write code - if that is your skill, or to just know to keep your hands off what you aren't good at. people make mistakes and if someone who was given access in order to do www goes and starts screwing with code so it breaks - a few reprimands on the mailing lists should cure that really fast, and if it doesn't - access to cvs can be removed (and will be) as if we can't trust them - why keep access to www? i like our own and flat trust structure. it's simple. it works as we are not a massive organisation. it allows or fluid movement and help wherever it is needed quickly. it shows we have faith in our fellow humans :) On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so eventually went back to an old original method. www lives in cvs - u want to work on it, u get cvs access. committing means it auto-updates. if u need to test the php locally setting up a local apache and mod-php, allow symlinks outside of the www doc dir to point to your homedir's cvs checkout of the www site, worsk just fine. it's simple and works. the php is also very simple. the main www site is meant to be simple and relatively static - the wiki, and other sites (trac, bugzilla etc.) are where the dynamic stuff happens... There is another advantage to keeping the site in CVS: you avoid segmenting the community into artificial sub-communities, or trying to place technical barriers around social structures. There is a flat hierarchy of trust, either you've earned it enough to get access or you haven't. There is no temptation to give people access to the website since it's only the website, and anyone with CVS access should know how interact within the project. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- - Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am -- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] [e-users] [website] cms?
We've tried this about 3 times. Someone comes along and says if we have a CMS non-technical people will write articles. We implement a CMS. No-one writes articles. We drop the CMS. If you want to write news releases put them on blogs. Or write a news blurb for the front page. If longer articles are put into the wiki other people can fix the formatting and the wiki syntax later. dan On 2-Aug-08, at 1:36 PM, Sthithaprajna Garapaty wrote: All good points, and I definitely agree that having a flat access structure is very nice. Perhaps we can keep it even if we use a CMS? Worth looking into. But, here are some arguments FOR a CMS: 1. We except articles to be written not by devs, but by users. I.E. People who are not technical enough to fiddle with CVS, or even HTML. They are good at writing and they can use a word processor. We shouldn't create a barrier of entry for these people. 2. It automatically provides all the things a website needs. Many of which are lacking in the current site. For example: Search, RSS feeds for posts, flexible templates styles, wysiwyg editors previews, taxonomy. Additionally a few CMSes also provide modules for integrating our other systems (wiki, bugs, etc) into the site. 3. Module support. Most big CMSes have support for modules. This means, they have a large library of 3rd party modules already, and its relatively easy to whip up our own. This means we can integrate all our other systems into the main e.org website. We could put the latest wiki articles on the front page, or the highest rated themes from exchange, or the latest CVS commits. Of course, we could write all of these things ourselves and stick 'em into CVS, but having a nice module api definitely helps speed up development. And some of these modules already exist. As far as the wiki being the place for articles, it definitely is the place for how-tos and tutorials, but its no place for news articles, articles on new features (wikis have a very poor sense of time) and articles that just show off EFL E. On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 2:47 AM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:18:23 -0500 Nathan Ingersoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: i agree here. i like our fairly flat (and lax) access structure. if we trust you to go writing bits of e.org's website - we trust you to write code - if that is your skill, or to just know to keep your hands off what you aren't good at. people make mistakes and if someone who was given access in order to do www goes and starts screwing with code so it breaks - a few reprimands on the mailing lists should cure that really fast, and if it doesn't - access to cvs can be removed (and will be) as if we can't trust them - why keep access to www? i like our own and flat trust structure. it's simple. it works as we are not a massive organisation. it allows or fluid movement and help wherever it is needed quickly. it shows we have faith in our fellow humans :) On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so eventually went back to an old original method. www lives in cvs - u want to work on it, u get cvs access. committing means it auto- updates. if u need to test the php locally setting up a local apache and mod- php, allow symlinks outside of the www doc dir to point to your homedir's cvs checkout of the www site, worsk just fine. it's simple and works. the php is also very simple. the main www site is meant to be simple and relatively static - the wiki, and other sites (trac, bugzilla etc.) are where the dynamic stuff happens... There is another advantage to keeping the site in CVS: you avoid segmenting the community into artificial sub-communities, or trying to place technical barriers around social structures. There is a flat hierarchy of trust, either you've earned it enough to get access or you haven't. There is no temptation to give people access to the website since it's only the website, and anyone with CVS access should know how interact within the project. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- - Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am -- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your
Re: [E-devel] [e-users] [website] cms?
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 8:58 PM, dan sinclair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've tried this about 3 times. Someone comes along and says if we have a CMS non-technical people will write articles. We implement a CMS. No-one writes articles. We drop the CMS. If you want to write news releases put them on blogs. Or write a news blurb for the front page. If longer articles are put into the wiki other people can fix the formatting and the wiki syntax later. dan Indeed. A CMS is not a solution for the lack of content. I've started the project's blog now and any articles, reviews, etc are more than welcome. Also, for documentation and HOWTOs the wiki is by far more appropriate. -- Luchezar P. Petkov http://luchko.net - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] [e-users] [website] cms?
While drunk at the moment (yet again) i think i would contribute to any user controlled content as would a lot of people. (while not drunk of course.) People semi-excited about the project would like to show their support too. And thats the great thing about OSS I believe that the community gets a say no matter what they do FOR the community! Maybe its a dream, but its what i hope for. Toma. On 8/3/08, dan sinclair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've tried this about 3 times. Someone comes along and says if we have a CMS non-technical people will write articles. We implement a CMS. No-one writes articles. We drop the CMS. If you want to write news releases put them on blogs. Or write a news blurb for the front page. If longer articles are put into the wiki other people can fix the formatting and the wiki syntax later. dan On 2-Aug-08, at 1:36 PM, Sthithaprajna Garapaty wrote: All good points, and I definitely agree that having a flat access structure is very nice. Perhaps we can keep it even if we use a CMS? Worth looking into. But, here are some arguments FOR a CMS: 1. We except articles to be written not by devs, but by users. I.E. People who are not technical enough to fiddle with CVS, or even HTML. They are good at writing and they can use a word processor. We shouldn't create a barrier of entry for these people. 2. It automatically provides all the things a website needs. Many of which are lacking in the current site. For example: Search, RSS feeds for posts, flexible templates styles, wysiwyg editors previews, taxonomy. Additionally a few CMSes also provide modules for integrating our other systems (wiki, bugs, etc) into the site. 3. Module support. Most big CMSes have support for modules. This means, they have a large library of 3rd party modules already, and its relatively easy to whip up our own. This means we can integrate all our other systems into the main e.org website. We could put the latest wiki articles on the front page, or the highest rated themes from exchange, or the latest CVS commits. Of course, we could write all of these things ourselves and stick 'em into CVS, but having a nice module api definitely helps speed up development. And some of these modules already exist. As far as the wiki being the place for articles, it definitely is the place for how-tos and tutorials, but its no place for news articles, articles on new features (wikis have a very poor sense of time) and articles that just show off EFL E. On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 2:47 AM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:18:23 -0500 Nathan Ingersoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: i agree here. i like our fairly flat (and lax) access structure. if we trust you to go writing bits of e.org's website - we trust you to write code - if that is your skill, or to just know to keep your hands off what you aren't good at. people make mistakes and if someone who was given access in order to do www goes and starts screwing with code so it breaks - a few reprimands on the mailing lists should cure that really fast, and if it doesn't - access to cvs can be removed (and will be) as if we can't trust them - why keep access to www? i like our own and flat trust structure. it's simple. it works as we are not a massive organisation. it allows or fluid movement and help wherever it is needed quickly. it shows we have faith in our fellow humans :) On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so eventually went back to an old original method. www lives in cvs - u want to work on it, u get cvs access. committing means it auto- updates. if u need to test the php locally setting up a local apache and mod- php, allow symlinks outside of the www doc dir to point to your homedir's cvs checkout of the www site, worsk just fine. it's simple and works. the php is also very simple. the main www site is meant to be simple and relatively static - the wiki, and other sites (trac, bugzilla etc.) are where the dynamic stuff happens... There is another advantage to keeping the site in CVS: you avoid segmenting the community into artificial sub-communities, or trying to place technical barriers around social structures. There is a flat hierarchy of trust, either you've earned it enough to get access or you haven't. There is no temptation to give people access to the website since it's only the website, and anyone with CVS access should know how interact within the project. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___
Re: [E-devel] [e-users] [website] cms?
I'm not saying having a CMS will suddenly bring people to write. That's a separate problem. I think it will not BLOCK people from writing. There's a difference. There are various avenues we can pursue to attract writers. Bounties, request for articles on the front page, etc can easily attract writers. Also, we need to have a strict no drinking and writing policy. On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Toma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While drunk at the moment (yet again) i think i would contribute to any user controlled content as would a lot of people. (while not drunk of course.) People semi-excited about the project would like to show their support too. And thats the great thing about OSS I believe that the community gets a say no matter what they do FOR the community! Maybe its a dream, but its what i hope for. Toma. On 8/3/08, dan sinclair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've tried this about 3 times. Someone comes along and says if we have a CMS non-technical people will write articles. We implement a CMS. No-one writes articles. We drop the CMS. If you want to write news releases put them on blogs. Or write a news blurb for the front page. If longer articles are put into the wiki other people can fix the formatting and the wiki syntax later. dan On 2-Aug-08, at 1:36 PM, Sthithaprajna Garapaty wrote: All good points, and I definitely agree that having a flat access structure is very nice. Perhaps we can keep it even if we use a CMS? Worth looking into. But, here are some arguments FOR a CMS: 1. We except articles to be written not by devs, but by users. I.E. People who are not technical enough to fiddle with CVS, or even HTML. They are good at writing and they can use a word processor. We shouldn't create a barrier of entry for these people. 2. It automatically provides all the things a website needs. Many of which are lacking in the current site. For example: Search, RSS feeds for posts, flexible templates styles, wysiwyg editors previews, taxonomy. Additionally a few CMSes also provide modules for integrating our other systems (wiki, bugs, etc) into the site. 3. Module support. Most big CMSes have support for modules. This means, they have a large library of 3rd party modules already, and its relatively easy to whip up our own. This means we can integrate all our other systems into the main e.org website. We could put the latest wiki articles on the front page, or the highest rated themes from exchange, or the latest CVS commits. Of course, we could write all of these things ourselves and stick 'em into CVS, but having a nice module api definitely helps speed up development. And some of these modules already exist. As far as the wiki being the place for articles, it definitely is the place for how-tos and tutorials, but its no place for news articles, articles on new features (wikis have a very poor sense of time) and articles that just show off EFL E. On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 2:47 AM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:18:23 -0500 Nathan Ingersoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: i agree here. i like our fairly flat (and lax) access structure. if we trust you to go writing bits of e.org's website - we trust you to write code - if that is your skill, or to just know to keep your hands off what you aren't good at. people make mistakes and if someone who was given access in order to do www goes and starts screwing with code so it breaks - a few reprimands on the mailing lists should cure that really fast, and if it doesn't - access to cvs can be removed (and will be) as if we can't trust them - why keep access to www? i like our own and flat trust structure. it's simple. it works as we are not a massive organisation. it allows or fluid movement and help wherever it is needed quickly. it shows we have faith in our fellow humans :) On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so eventually went back to an old original method. www lives in cvs - u want to work on it, u get cvs access. committing means it auto- updates. if u need to test the php locally setting up a local apache and mod- php, allow symlinks outside of the www doc dir to point to your homedir's cvs checkout of the www site, worsk just fine. it's simple and works. the php is also very simple. the main www site is meant to be simple and relatively static - the wiki, and other sites (trac, bugzilla etc.) are where the dynamic stuff happens... There is another advantage to keeping the site in CVS: you avoid segmenting the community into artificial sub-communities, or trying to place technical barriers around social structures. There is a flat hierarchy of trust, either you've earned it enough to get access or you haven't. There is no temptation to give people access to the website since it's only the website, and anyone with CVS access should know how interact
Re: [E-devel] [e-users] [website] cms?
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 02:26:57 +0800 Toma [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: While drunk at the moment (yet again) i think i would contribute to any user controlled content as would a lot of people. (while not drunk of course.) People semi-excited about the project would like to show their support too. And thats the great thing about OSS I believe that the community gets a say no matter what they do FOR the community! Maybe its a dream, but its what i hope for. Toma. and we can happily add cvs access for those wanting to work on the site! :) On 8/3/08, dan sinclair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've tried this about 3 times. Someone comes along and says if we have a CMS non-technical people will write articles. We implement a CMS. No-one writes articles. We drop the CMS. If you want to write news releases put them on blogs. Or write a news blurb for the front page. If longer articles are put into the wiki other people can fix the formatting and the wiki syntax later. dan On 2-Aug-08, at 1:36 PM, Sthithaprajna Garapaty wrote: All good points, and I definitely agree that having a flat access structure is very nice. Perhaps we can keep it even if we use a CMS? Worth looking into. But, here are some arguments FOR a CMS: 1. We except articles to be written not by devs, but by users. I.E. People who are not technical enough to fiddle with CVS, or even HTML. They are good at writing and they can use a word processor. We shouldn't create a barrier of entry for these people. 2. It automatically provides all the things a website needs. Many of which are lacking in the current site. For example: Search, RSS feeds for posts, flexible templates styles, wysiwyg editors previews, taxonomy. Additionally a few CMSes also provide modules for integrating our other systems (wiki, bugs, etc) into the site. 3. Module support. Most big CMSes have support for modules. This means, they have a large library of 3rd party modules already, and its relatively easy to whip up our own. This means we can integrate all our other systems into the main e.org website. We could put the latest wiki articles on the front page, or the highest rated themes from exchange, or the latest CVS commits. Of course, we could write all of these things ourselves and stick 'em into CVS, but having a nice module api definitely helps speed up development. And some of these modules already exist. As far as the wiki being the place for articles, it definitely is the place for how-tos and tutorials, but its no place for news articles, articles on new features (wikis have a very poor sense of time) and articles that just show off EFL E. On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 2:47 AM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:18:23 -0500 Nathan Ingersoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: i agree here. i like our fairly flat (and lax) access structure. if we trust you to go writing bits of e.org's website - we trust you to write code - if that is your skill, or to just know to keep your hands off what you aren't good at. people make mistakes and if someone who was given access in order to do www goes and starts screwing with code so it breaks - a few reprimands on the mailing lists should cure that really fast, and if it doesn't - access to cvs can be removed (and will be) as if we can't trust them - why keep access to www? i like our own and flat trust structure. it's simple. it works as we are not a massive organisation. it allows or fluid movement and help wherever it is needed quickly. it shows we have faith in our fellow humans :) On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so eventually went back to an old original method. www lives in cvs - u want to work on it, u get cvs access. committing means it auto- updates. if u need to test the php locally setting up a local apache and mod- php, allow symlinks outside of the www doc dir to point to your homedir's cvs checkout of the www site, worsk just fine. it's simple and works. the php is also very simple. the main www site is meant to be simple and relatively static - the wiki, and other sites (trac, bugzilla etc.) are where the dynamic stuff happens... There is another advantage to keeping the site in CVS: you avoid segmenting the community into artificial sub-communities, or trying to place technical barriers around social structures. There is a flat hierarchy of trust, either you've earned it enough to get access or you haven't. There is no temptation to give people access to the website since it's only the website, and anyone with CVS access should know how interact within the project. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the
Re: [E-devel] [e-users] [website] cms?
On 2-Aug-08, at 2:55 PM, Sthithaprajna Garapaty wrote: I'm not saying having a CMS will suddenly bring people to write. That's a separate problem. I think it will not BLOCK people from writing. There's a difference. There are various avenues we can pursue to attract writers. Bounties, request for articles on the front page, etc can easily attract writers. Also, we need to have a strict no drinking and writing policy. Nothing we have now blocks people from writing (and this is coming from the guy that wrote a _lot_ of documentation for Ewl and the EFL). Use your blog. Use the wiki. Everything is available. If people wanted to write they'd be doing it already. If we have to pay them, then I'd say they're just in it for the money. Probably not the type of community we want to foster. dan - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] [e-users] [website] cms?
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:46:01 -0700 Ian Caldwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled: So now it is your chance to tell us why we should be using a specific cms verses the alternative of just making our own specific to our needs and keeping it minimalistic. Please give the pros and the cons and explorer the issues that would involve e directly (e.g. themeing, translations etc etc) here's my 2c. we've been through multiple cms's. none of them suddenly meant the website is updated often and well maintained. they did nothing but make it harder. they generally just got in the way (hard to customise etc etc.). so eventually went back to an old original method. www lives in cvs - u want to work on it, u get cvs access. committing means it auto-updates. if u need to test the php locally setting up a local apache and mod-php, allow symlinks outside of the www doc dir to point to your homedir's cvs checkout of the www site, worsk just fine. it's simple and works. the php is also very simple. the main www site is meant to be simple and relatively static - the wiki, and other sites (trac, bugzilla etc.) are where the dynamic stuff happens... -- - Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am -- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] [e-users] [website] cms?
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so eventually went back to an old original method. www lives in cvs - u want to work on it, u get cvs access. committing means it auto-updates. if u need to test the php locally setting up a local apache and mod-php, allow symlinks outside of the www doc dir to point to your homedir's cvs checkout of the www site, worsk just fine. it's simple and works. the php is also very simple. the main www site is meant to be simple and relatively static - the wiki, and other sites (trac, bugzilla etc.) are where the dynamic stuff happens... There is another advantage to keeping the site in CVS: you avoid segmenting the community into artificial sub-communities, or trying to place technical barriers around social structures. There is a flat hierarchy of trust, either you've earned it enough to get access or you haven't. There is no temptation to give people access to the website since it's only the website, and anyone with CVS access should know how interact within the project. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
