Proposal: Remove website from SVN

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

I know you are probably tired of my proposals by now ;-) ... but there
is more work to be done.

We should remove the stuff from myfaces/site from SVN.  This is the
*transformed* HTML and IMO it doesn't really belong in SVN (for the
same reasons we discussed on the earlier lib thread.)

For those who aren't famliar with the website build procedure we use
forrest to build the HTML (forrest docs should remain in SVN
obviously).  Then the HTML is checked into SVN.  Then a chron script
on minotaur does a SVN update to pull down the updated files.

I could give a long list of reasons why this is a PITA but I'm
thinking most people will probably agree.  In the interim I'm thinking
we build a tarball, scp to minotaur, remove existing website, replace
with new tarball.  All done by ant.  Eventually we can move it to
Maven but I think the Maven investigation/debate will take some time
to resolve.

sean

Re: Proposal: Remove website from SVN

[Thomas Spiegl <th...@gmail.com>]

sounds good to me!
+1

On 7/6/05, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If there is an automated way without svn, of course
> +1 from me
> 
> Thanks,
> -Manfred
> 
> 
> 2005/7/6, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> > +1
> >
> > Sean Schofield wrote:
> >
> > >I know you are probably tired of my proposals by now ;-) ... but there
> > >is more work to be done.
> > >
> > >We should remove the stuff from myfaces/site from SVN. This is the
> > >*transformed* HTML and IMO it doesn't really belong in SVN (for the
> > >same reasons we discussed on the earlier lib thread.)
> > >
> > >For those who aren't famliar with the website build procedure we use
> > >forrest to build the HTML (forrest docs should remain in SVN
> > >obviously). Then the HTML is checked into SVN. Then a chron script
> > >on minotaur does a SVN update to pull down the updated files.
> > >
> > >I could give a long list of reasons why this is a PITA but I'm
> > >thinking most people will probably agree. In the interim I'm thinking
> > >we build a tarball, scp to minotaur, remove existing website, replace
> > >with new tarball. All done by ant. Eventually we can move it to
> > >Maven but I think the Maven investigation/debate will take some time
> > >to resolve.
> > >
> > >sean
> > >
> > >.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: Proposal: Remove website from SVN

[Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>]

If there is an automated way without svn, of course
+1 from me

Thanks,
-Manfred


2005/7/6, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> +1
> 
> Sean Schofield wrote:
> 
> >I know you are probably tired of my proposals by now ;-) ... but there
> >is more work to be done.
> >
> >We should remove the stuff from myfaces/site from SVN.  This is the
> >*transformed* HTML and IMO it doesn't really belong in SVN (for the
> >same reasons we discussed on the earlier lib thread.)
> >
> >For those who aren't famliar with the website build procedure we use
> >forrest to build the HTML (forrest docs should remain in SVN
> >obviously).  Then the HTML is checked into SVN.  Then a chron script
> >on minotaur does a SVN update to pull down the updated files.
> >
> >I could give a long list of reasons why this is a PITA but I'm
> >thinking most people will probably agree.  In the interim I'm thinking
> >we build a tarball, scp to minotaur, remove existing website, replace
> >with new tarball.  All done by ant.  Eventually we can move it to
> >Maven but I think the Maven investigation/debate will take some time
> >to resolve.
> >
> >sean
> >
> >.
> >
> >
> >
> 
>

Re: Proposal: Remove website from SVN

[Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>]

+1

Sean Schofield wrote:

>I know you are probably tired of my proposals by now ;-) ... but there
>is more work to be done.
>
>We should remove the stuff from myfaces/site from SVN.  This is the
>*transformed* HTML and IMO it doesn't really belong in SVN (for the
>same reasons we discussed on the earlier lib thread.)
>
>For those who aren't famliar with the website build procedure we use
>forrest to build the HTML (forrest docs should remain in SVN
>obviously).  Then the HTML is checked into SVN.  Then a chron script
>on minotaur does a SVN update to pull down the updated files.
>
>I could give a long list of reasons why this is a PITA but I'm
>thinking most people will probably agree.  In the interim I'm thinking
>we build a tarball, scp to minotaur, remove existing website, replace
>with new tarball.  All done by ant.  Eventually we can move it to
>Maven but I think the Maven investigation/debate will take some time
>to resolve.
>
>sean
>
>.
>
>  
>

Re: Proposal: Remove website from SVN

[Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>]

Yes, I think the website would not need to be checked in.

+1

regards,

Martin

On 7/6/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know you are probably tired of my proposals by now ;-) ... but there
> is more work to be done.
> 
> We should remove the stuff from myfaces/site from SVN.  This is the
> *transformed* HTML and IMO it doesn't really belong in SVN (for the
> same reasons we discussed on the earlier lib thread.)
> 
> For those who aren't famliar with the website build procedure we use
> forrest to build the HTML (forrest docs should remain in SVN
> obviously).  Then the HTML is checked into SVN.  Then a chron script
> on minotaur does a SVN update to pull down the updated files.
> 
> I could give a long list of reasons why this is a PITA but I'm
> thinking most people will probably agree.  In the interim I'm thinking
> we build a tarball, scp to minotaur, remove existing website, replace
> with new tarball.  All done by ant.  Eventually we can move it to
> Maven but I think the Maven investigation/debate will take some time
> to resolve.
> 
> sean
>

Re: Proposal: Remove website from SVN

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

Website (including javadoc) has been removed from SVN.  I'm working on
the bootstrap.xml etc. to get everything automated again.

sean

On 7/7/05, John Fallows <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding).
> 
> I completely agree with Craig's point that generated artifacts should
> not be checked in to version control.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> John Fallows.
>

Re: Proposal: Remove website from SVN

[John Fallows <jo...@gmail.com>]

+1 (non-binding).

I completely agree with Craig's point that generated artifacts should
not be checked in to version control.

Kind Regards,
John Fallows.

Re: Proposal: Remove website from SVN

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

> At the same time, you might want to join the discussions on site-dev@,
> where the goal is to come up with a way to facilitate building sites and
> also to facilitate infra@ folks from reinstating a "damaged" site quickly
> if the need occurs.

Sigh.  Another mailing list
;-)

I wasn't aware the list existed.  I guess I should probably join.  Thanks.

> Martin Cooper

sean

Re: Proposal: Remove website from SVN

[Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Sean Schofield wrote:

> I know you are probably tired of my proposals by now ;-) ... but there
> is more work to be done.

Sigh. Sean's at it again.

Just kidding! :-)

> We should remove the stuff from myfaces/site from SVN.  This is the
> *transformed* HTML and IMO it doesn't really belong in SVN (for the
> same reasons we discussed on the earlier lib thread.)

At the same time, you might want to join the discussions on site-dev@, 
where the goal is to come up with a way to facilitate building sites and 
also to facilitate infra@ folks from reinstating a "damaged" site quickly 
if the need occurs.

--
Martin Cooper


> For those who aren't famliar with the website build procedure we use
> forrest to build the HTML (forrest docs should remain in SVN
> obviously).  Then the HTML is checked into SVN.  Then a chron script
> on minotaur does a SVN update to pull down the updated files.
>
> I could give a long list of reasons why this is a PITA but I'm
> thinking most people will probably agree.  In the interim I'm thinking
> we build a tarball, scp to minotaur, remove existing website, replace
> with new tarball.  All done by ant.  Eventually we can move it to
> Maven but I think the Maven investigation/debate will take some time
> to resolve.
>
> sean
>

Re: Proposal: Remove website from SVN

[Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>]

On 7/6/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know you are probably tired of my proposals by now ;-) ... but there
> is more work to be done.
> 
> We should remove the stuff from myfaces/site from SVN.  This is the
> *transformed* HTML and IMO it doesn't really belong in SVN (for the
> same reasons we discussed on the earlier lib thread.)
> 

No surprise here, but +1 (non binding :-).  Generated artifacts should
not be checked in -- they should be generated on demand (or downloaded
on demand from a repository, for things like jar files).

Craig