Hi,
it's great to see you picking it up so soon :)
Capistrano changed the mental model of deployment forever, for lots of
people, inside Rails community and outside of it.
I cannot help with improving the codebase, but would gladly help with
further work on documentation/tutorials, as I did
Thanks for your feedback Karel!
I agree that Capistrano needs more documentation and I'm happy to hear
someone else is available to contribute.
I must confess I didn't notice your message before, I'm going to post a
reply at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano/msg/654e5e84d45f9098
Talking
My 2 cents about this topic.
I agree that Capistrano needs more documentation.
From one side I agree with Jamis that rdoc is not useful at all for
people who wants to *use* Capistrano, but it might be helpful for
those who wants to *extend* or play with it at development level.
When I first
I've been prompted to finish hashing out a load of blog articles that have
been sitting round my site as drafts since forever... and get them made into
real posts - I think I posted two yesterday, and will continue to post
anything I think is useful.
The same here! :D
Maybe someone should
Hi
I am just glad someone is willing to step in so quickly.
I think capistrano and webistrano is both great products but with an
original focus on ruby/rails applications. I believe that with a bit
of effort ( a bit more in webistrano) it could easily be made to be
more generic. Currently I have
On 26.02.2009, at 12:55, Lee Hambley wrote:
Hi All,
I'm a little suspect of the Webistrano/Macistrano guys taking over
development, as I feel particularly that Webistrano limits the
capabilities of capistrano and limits it usefulness for non-rails
projects.
Whilst there's still a
As another non-rails capistrano user, keeping it a flexible
commandline
tool is important. Since that seems to be understood, I'm all for
Mathias
and Jonathan stepping up.
Git forks are great for experimentation, but `gem install capistrano`
better know where to go or we'll lose lots of
Hey Jamis,
I never actually bothered to check, I figured it was served from the github
gem server -- completely agree with your last statement about people not
really taking much interest in hacking the core before, there's no reason
that people should go messing with it for no real reason now...
On 2/26/09 2:18 PM, Lee Hambley wrote:
Hey Jamis,
I never actually bothered to check, I figured it was served from the
github gem server -- completely agree with your last statement about
people not really taking much interest in hacking the core before,
there's no reason that people
Lee Hambley wrote:
My only concern would be that there is no more single place to go to get
a copy, get info and learn about it, a bunch of similarly named forks,
with similar feature sets would just cause trouble :)
I don't think this will happen as the 'blessed' version will pretty fast
On 2/26/09 2:27 PM, Jonathan Weiss wrote:
Lee Hambley wrote:
My only concern would be that there is no more single place to go to get
a copy, get info and learn about it, a bunch of similarly named forks,
with similar feature sets would just cause trouble :)
I don't think this will
+1 for a capistrano user on github...
Does anyone know what happens, if Rubyforge, and Github gems both exist,
which do you end up with... the newest, I suppose?
- Lee
2009/2/26 Jamis Buck ja...@37signals.com
On 2/26/09 2:27 PM, Jonathan Weiss wrote:
Lee Hambley wrote:
My only concern
On 2/26/09 2:39 PM, Lee Hambley wrote:
+1 for a capistrano user on github...
Does anyone know what happens, if Rubyforge, and Github gems both exist,
which do you end up with... the newest, I suppose?
Github gems are not searched unless you explicitly configure for them.
Furthermore, github
Ahh :)
That explains why I could never get my gem to install anywhere :)
- Lee
2009/2/26 Jamis Buck ja...@37signals.com
On 2/26/09 2:39 PM, Lee Hambley wrote:
+1 for a capistrano user on github...
Does anyone know what happens, if Rubyforge, and Github gems both exist,
which do you
14 matches
Mail list logo
