Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Dan Espen
Thomas Adam  writes:

R> On 23 March 2016 at 22:21, Dan Espen  wrote:
> Excellent.  Then set yourself up with a Github account, and let me
> know your username, and I'll add you to the fvwmorg and you can do
> something with the website repository.

My account is named "danespen".

> Note that I'm getting married this weekend and will then be away on
> honey moon for two weeks.

Enjoy and don't even think about Fvwm.

I've no specific plans for retirement.
I'm on my own and starting over.

-- 
Dan Espen



Re: [fvwmorg/fvwm] c6de88: distcheck2: remove bzip2 archive generation

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Adam
Hi,

On 25 March 2016 at 22:57, GitHub  wrote:
>   Branch: refs/heads/ta/makedist-no-bzip2
>   Home:   https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm
>   Commit: c6de883d85466cdc4c3ee4fc6b8ee3f5c87b8af0
>   
> https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/c6de883d85466cdc4c3ee4fc6b8ee3f5c87b8af0
>   Author: Thomas Adam 
>   Date:   2016-03-25 (Fri, 25 Mar 2016)
>
>   Changed paths:
> M Makefile.am
>
>   Log Message:
>   ---
>   distcheck2: remove bzip2 archive generation
>
> Having two sets of generated archives was always wasteful, and the release
> mechanism on Github only allows for zip or tar.gz to be uploaded, making the
> bzip2 archive redundant.

To that end---and to illustrate---I've opened up a PR (pull-request)
for this here:

https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/pull/1

You'll note that I cannot merge this to master, even though I have the
rights, until the build has passed.

As and when people here gain commit-bit rights on the repository,
"Watching" the repository will send out emails to you whenever issues
and/or pull-requests are made.

-- Thomas Adam



Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Adam
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 05:37:50PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "TA" == Thomas Adam  writes:
> 
> TA> I note that it's possible to set up webhooks on repositories on
> TA> Github.  We could use that mechanism to notify you of changes which
> TA> need pulling (and hence, enact some script to do a git-pull), rather
> TA> than polling for them.
> 
> It's probably not worth the effort compared to running a cron job every
> few minutes, but if it's easy then I'll at least try.

I think it's worth exploring, and I've done it before for other notification
things.

> I'm OK with continuing to maintain the site this way, but I'm not going
> to complain if you want to move it all to github.  What I really want to
> do is get away from having to keep the CVS server running.

Of course, I'm surprised you hadn't burned it already.  :)

-- Thomas Adam

-- 
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong.  But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)



Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "DE" == Dan Espen  writes:

DE> Not sure why, maybe I paid, but paid for you?

Yes, the last time it came up for renewal, you paid for it.  We didn't
actually transfer the ownership or the registrar.  If you want to do
that, though, then just let me know what I need to do.

 - J<



Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "TA" == Thomas Adam  writes:

TA> I note that it's possible to set up webhooks on repositories on
TA> Github.  We could use that mechanism to notify you of changes which
TA> need pulling (and hence, enact some script to do a git-pull), rather
TA> than polling for them.

It's probably not worth the effort compared to running a cron job every
few minutes, but if it's easy then I'll at least try.

I'm OK with continuing to maintain the site this way, but I'm not going
to complain if you want to move it all to github.  What I really want to
do is get away from having to keep the CVS server running.

 - J<



Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Adam
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 04:43:53PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> OK, a manual pull worked.  Turns out that the update script is in my
> home directory, which isn't accessible without a kerberos ticket.
> That's fixed up.

TGTs.  Nice!

> It's a trivial matter to have this do a git pull instead, so if the
> fvwm-web repository on github is up to date, then just let me know and
> I'll switch over.

I keep thinking about that; it's certainly an option.  Perhaps we can trial
this to see how it goes.  I note that it's possible to set up webhooks on
repositories on Github.  We could use that mechanism to notify you of changes
which need pulling (and hence, enact some script to do a git-pull), rather
than polling for them.

-- Thomas Adam

-- 
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong.  But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)



Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Dan Espen
Jason L Tibbitts III  writes:

>> "JS" == Jaimos Skriletz  writes:
>
> JS> who controls the domain name fvwm.org,
>
> A whois query shows that it's me.

Not sure why, maybe I paid, but paid for you?

  From: Gandi 
  Subject: [GANDI] fvwm.org domain name renewed
  To: des...@verizon.net
  Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:58:29 +0200 (2 years, 34 weeks, 4 days ago)


  Dear Customer,

  We are pleased to confirm that you have successfully renewed the following 
domain that is registered at Gandi:

  fvwm.org

  This domain has been renewed for 3 year(s), and the new the new expiration 
date is therefore 2017-12-29 05:00:00

  As a reminder for your records, the handle that you used to renew this domain 
is XX.


-- 
Dan Espen



Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Adam
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 04:00:19PM -0600, Jaimos Skriletz wrote:
> Hello, I have offered to help migrate the fvwm.org to something more
> maintainable as this is something Thomas was wanting help with in #fvwm.

Hi Jaimos,

> I am unsure on a lot of the details about how the current site is
> generated, who controls the domain name fvwm.org, and what any current or
> future plans for the site are, but offered to help in any migration.

So the domain is controlled by "us", but in reality, it's Jason who's
responsible for that.

The fvwm-web documentation (if you can call it that) is found here:

http://fvwm.org/documentation/dev_cvs.php#fvwm-web

Note the scripts (I've mentioned them in other threads here) which link
through to the fvwm repo.  That's an aspect we have to change---what's needed
on the website stays in the website, so if we have to move files into that,
sobeit.

Other than that, everything is in PHP.  When the website is updated (currently
with 'cvs update') then that's polled sometime later via a cronscript which
makes the content live on fvwm.org

> Thomas mentioned wanting to move it to git-hub and generating it from
> markdown using jekyll. So I offered to learn jekyll and convert the current
> site to a static site written in markdown. I was just going to do this all
> locally and see what I am able to get done in figuring out how to customize
> a site with jekyll.
> 
> So this email is just to let you know that I'm looking at what it would
> take to move the site to markdown and use jekyll to generate a static copy.
> I'm thinking once I get it configured a lot of copying and pasting, but
> I'll have to get back to the jekyll docs to figure out more.

Thanks!

-- Thomas Adam

-- 
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong.  But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)



Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "JS" == Jaimos Skriletz  writes:

JS> who controls the domain name fvwm.org,

A whois query shows that it's me.

 - J<



Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Jaimos Skriletz
>
> Jaimos Skriletz has also expressed an interest in this (I'ev Cced him), and
> he'll post here soon about what his thoughts are, etc.  Hopefully you and
> he
> can work together on this.
>

​Hello, I have offered to help migrate the fvwm.org to something more
maintainable as this is something Thomas was wanting help with in #fvwm.

I am unsure on a lot of the details about how the current site is
generated, who controls the domain name fvwm.org, and what any current or
future plans for the site are, but offered to help in any migration.

Thomas mentioned wanting to move it to git-hub and generating it from
markdown using jekyll. So I offered to learn jekyll and convert the current
site to a static site written in markdown. I was just going to do this all
locally and see what I am able to get done in figuring out how to customize
a site with jekyll.

So this email is just to let you know that I'm looking at what it would
take to move the site to markdown and use jekyll to generate a static copy.
I'm thinking once I get it configured a lot of copying and pasting, but
I'll have to get back to the jekyll docs to figure out more.

jaimos


Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
OK, a manual pull worked.  Turns out that the update script is in my
home directory, which isn't accessible without a kerberos ticket.
That's fixed up.

It's a trivial matter to have this do a git pull instead, so if the
fvwm-web repository on github is up to date, then just let me know and
I'll switch over.

 - J<



Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "DE" == Dan Espen  writes:

DE> Meanwhile, I committed fvwm-web changes yesterday, but those changes
DE> have not shown up at fvwm.org.

Where did you commit them?  I'm surprised you could commit at all, given
the fact that the CVS server isn't really happy.  I'll try to do a pull
manually.

 - J<



Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Adam
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 05:21:27PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

Hi Dan,

> My first impression, it's Github only.

No, not at all.  It's a way of generating HTML from static templates, which
can be augmented with CSS and extra HTML where necessary.  It just so happens
that what Github hosting offers, is Jekyll support out-of-the-box.

> I lean toward writing plain HTML/CSS with a little JavaScript for
> maximum portability and familiarity.

I'm afraid I lean in the opposite direction.  We are by no means a special
snowflake such that we need to do this from scratch.  One of the aims here is
to be able to take away the need for writing HTML/CSS, not make it an upfront
requirement.

Jaimos Skriletz has also expressed an interest in this (I'ev Cced him), and
he'll post here soon about what his thoughts are, etc.  Hopefully you and he
can work together on this.

> Meanwhile, I committed fvwm-web changes yesterday, but those
> changes have not shown up at fvwm.org.
> 
> Jason, what's up?

Probably the same problem with the main FVWM repo; it's wedged.

-- Thomas Adam

-- 
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong.  But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)



Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Dan Espen
Thomas Adam  writes:

> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 09:19:18PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Yep, I'm referring to the web pages.
>> I have some CSS based pages at work using themes.
>> The themes aren't really important to me, but since
>> I doubt GIT is going to give us PHP I think we'll be better off without
>> the PHP.
>
> Have a look at this:
>
> https://help.github.com/articles/about-github-pages-and-jekyll/
>
> I think this would be a good way to go, and would reduce the need for us to
> potentially write any HTML.
>
> I'm all for using Jekyll in this case!

My first impression, it's Github only.
I lean toward writing plain HTML/CSS with a little JavaScript for
maximum portability and familiarity.

Meanwhile, I committed fvwm-web changes yesterday, but those
changes have not shown up at fvwm.org.

Jason, what's up?

-- 
Dan Espen



Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Adam
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 09:19:18PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> Yep, I'm referring to the web pages.
> I have some CSS based pages at work using themes.
> The themes aren't really important to me, but since
> I doubt GIT is going to give us PHP I think we'll be better off without
> the PHP.

Have a look at this:

https://help.github.com/articles/about-github-pages-and-jekyll/

I think this would be a good way to go, and would reduce the need for us to
potentially write any HTML.

I'm all for using Jekyll in this case!

-- Thomas Adam

-- 
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong.  But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)



Re: Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Funk
"Thomas Adam"  wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:25:09PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> > I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no
> > questions appears anymore ;)
> > 
> > I can add it to the document, no prob.
> 
> I've added a few words about this, without making this a rule, which
> hopefully people will follow.

That's fine, thanks.

> 
> -- Thomas Adam
> 
> -- 
> "Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong.  But deep in my heart I know I am
> not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)
> 
> 



Re: Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Adam
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:25:09PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no
> questions appears anymore ;)
> 
> I can add it to the document, no prob.

I've added a few words about this, without making this a rule, which
hopefully people will follow.

-- Thomas Adam

-- 
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong.  But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)



Re: Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Funk
"Thomas Adam"  wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:30:03AM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> > One point:
> > Should we use for development branches a special nomination like 
> > feature_xy, fix_abc?
> > Or only a README which describes the feature/fix?
> 
> I don't think that's necessary.  Typically, you have this pattern:
> 
> initials/rough-branch-description
> 
> Which denotes---by the initials---who's mainly working on the branch,
> so for example:
> 
> ta/fix-clang-warnings
> 
> Should denote that I am working on a branch which fixes warnings from
> Clang.  Similarly, there's also "git branch --edit-description" which
> can further annotate a branch, usually more helpful when issuing
> pull-requests.
> 
> Perhaps in a more wider-context, if a branch ends up not having a
> prefix, it might mean more than one person is working on it.
> 
> But I don't think this really needs documenting.

I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no
questions appears anymore ;)

I can add it to the document, no prob.

> 
> > To think about this point: 
> > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
> 
> Hmm.  I have always been against this design---this is what lead to the
> whole git-flow set of tooling, which completely locks you in to one way
> of working.  We really do not need anything as complicated as that.

Ok.

> 
> -- Thomas Adam
> 
> -- 
> "Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong.  But deep in my heart I know I am
> not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)
> 
> 



Re: Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]

2016-03-25 Thread Thomas Adam
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:30:03AM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> One point:
> Should we use for development branches a special nomination like feature_xy, 
> fix_abc?
> Or only a README which describes the feature/fix?

I don't think that's necessary.  Typically, you have this pattern:

initials/rough-branch-description

Which denotes---by the initials---who's mainly working on the branch,
so for example:

ta/fix-clang-warnings

Should denote that I am working on a branch which fixes warnings from
Clang.  Similarly, there's also "git branch --edit-description" which
can further annotate a branch, usually more helpful when issuing
pull-requests.

Perhaps in a more wider-context, if a branch ends up not having a
prefix, it might mean more than one person is working on it.

But I don't think this really needs documenting.

> To think about this point: 
> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

Hmm.  I have always been against this design---this is what lead to the
whole git-flow set of tooling, which completely locks you in to one way
of working.  We really do not need anything as complicated as that.

-- Thomas Adam

-- 
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong.  But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)