Re: Forrest-lenya instance

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> 
> Maybe we should think about a basic structure of *our* lenya pub, this
> way I can setup the instance with our structure and get rid of the
> sample.

We just want a flat directory structure at the moment.
This is a "whiteboard" wiki-like thingy for us to
experiment with. It is not yet our Forrest documentation
editing environment. That is a long way down the track.

Does that need a publication?

> How to we want to handle the user management?
> 
> Should I add all forrest committers as reviewer and the devs/user as
> editor. Or should I create one default editor and user? We need to make
> sure that nobody besides us can edit.

Can you explain a bit more about the difference between
those options?

-David

> Next steps:
> - create forrest lenya-based Forrest Tuesday pub.
> - create user
> - create content
> - use the brand new lenya plugin to get the content into our docu
> - ...
> 
> salu2
> -- 
> thorsten
> 
> "Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
> Hey you (Pink Floyd)

Re: Forrest-lenya instance

[Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>]

On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 18:42 +1000, David Crossley wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > > 
> > > For the task at hand, yes. The main reason is to
> > > have a whiteboard to assist us with the XHTML move.
> > > 
> > > The secondary reason is to have a Lenya instance
> > > so that later we can enhance our Lenya input plugin.
> > > I don't want to see this first ForrestTuesday turn
> > > into a Lenya-Forrest integration exercise. This is
> > > a good time to kick-start, but we have other priorities. 
> > 
> > Then we should use the cocoon or lenya wiki. I do not have time for
> > creating pubs for fun. If it should not become a basis for integration
> > then I do not see the point in spending my spare time for it.
> 
> Now you are putting words in my mouth. Please see
> point #2 above. I did not say that this Lenya instance
> will not become the basis for our Lenya-Forrest
> integration. Quite the opposite. It is our first
> important step. I only want us to not rush headlong
> into it. Step by step. Please do whatever is easiest
> to get us started.

agree. 

> 
> > BTW I want to announce that I will lay lower with forrest for a while.
> > There are too many things in my real life happening right now that I
> > need to leverage my time better. I will still be subscribed but only
> > doing work when I can (mostly that will be view related).
> 
> Okay, we can only do what we can. I do hope that
> i did not put you off. That was not my intention.

no.
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)

Re: Forrest-lenya instance

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > 
> > For the task at hand, yes. The main reason is to
> > have a whiteboard to assist us with the XHTML move.
> > 
> > The secondary reason is to have a Lenya instance
> > so that later we can enhance our Lenya input plugin.
> > I don't want to see this first ForrestTuesday turn
> > into a Lenya-Forrest integration exercise. This is
> > a good time to kick-start, but we have other priorities. 
> 
> Then we should use the cocoon or lenya wiki. I do not have time for
> creating pubs for fun. If it should not become a basis for integration
> then I do not see the point in spending my spare time for it.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. Please see
point #2 above. I did not say that this Lenya instance
will not become the basis for our Lenya-Forrest
integration. Quite the opposite. It is our first
important step. I only want us to not rush headlong
into it. Step by step. Please do whatever is easiest
to get us started.

> BTW I want to announce that I will lay lower with forrest for a while.
> There are too many things in my real life happening right now that I
> need to leverage my time better. I will still be subscribed but only
> doing work when I can (mostly that will be view related).

Okay, we can only do what we can. I do hope that
i did not put you off. That was not my intention.

-David

Re: Forrest-lenya instance

[Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>]

On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 13:07 +1000, David Crossley wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:

> > > Does that need a publication?
> > 
> > Hmm, to be bloody honest with you, my intend is to implement Ross idea
> > of getting forrest devs started with lenya. I personally see too much
> > work and effort that is duplicated (done by both projects) and this as
> > opportunity to get both projects in sync to focus on their core
> > competence. For example our plugins and lenya's modules *are* the same
> > thing (better said addressing the same issue). This is just one example
> > where we (speaking for both project) try to reinvent the wheel that
> > cocoon made round for us, instead of contributing the enhancement of the
> > wheel back to cocoon. ;-)
> 
> That paragraph does not sound like a joke, but the smiley
> at the end indicates so. Anyway, i am treating it as serious.
> 
> I suggest that we keep developing our plugins here
> at Forrest, and that Lenya keep on with their modules.
> 
> When Cocoon has real blocks happening then we will
> all be able to interoperate better. There is no point
> contributing back to Cocoon at this stage. Nor do i see
> reasons for Lenya and Forrest to merge capabilities yet.
> The design of plugins/blocks will change.
> 

Please, I am quite tiered that lately many people started to jump on
everything that somebody writes. If you do, make sure that it is not
your *own* interpretation rather then the actual written thought!

Who said or recommended that we should not develop plugins anymore or
lenya their modules? I said to sync the effort!

> We are not reinventing Cocoon's wheel. 

that is your personal opinion. I have my own.

> Forrest built
> upon that with the pass-through sitemaps and donated
> that part back. More major changes need to wait for
> real blocks.
> 
> > Now BT (back to topic), yes we need our own publication, for now only to
> > clean up the default pub. The default pub is like our "forrest seed"
> > with lots of examples. What we need is something like "forrest
> > seed-basic". A cleanup of all the examples to get started. Then we can
> > go enhance it and extend it for our needs. The "flat directory
> > structure" we will need to define and yes, that is for now just a
> > playground for us and not "yet our Forrest documentation editing
> > environment".
> 
> Okay now i understand that we do need a very basic
> "publication". You wondered in another thread whether
> we needed one. I was trying to help make that decision.
> Actually i am surprised that Lenya does not already have
> a very basic publication that we can just use.
> 

It is called default pub, like i mentioned. We should use it instead. 

> > > > How to we want to handle the user management?
> > > > 
> > > > Should I add all forrest committers as reviewer and the devs/user as
> > > > editor. Or should I create one default editor and user? We need to make
> > > > sure that nobody besides us can edit.
> > > 
> > > Can you explain a bit more about the difference between
> > > those options?
> > 
> > We can add every single committer (to get started) to the ac. That let
> > you log in as e.g. thorsten with pass XxXxX or david with pass YyYyYyY.
> > That allow to track down specific changes by users/editors. I would
> > setup the accounts on demand and notify every single committer about
> > their password that I have choosen or alternatively the committer can
> > send me the pass and I set it up. 
> > 
> > The alternative is to create a generic user/editor that you and me use
> > with the same pass. Like we have e.g. in the lenya zone. That is quicker
> > to setup and could be easily extended in future. The problem is when it
> > comes to users/devs. I fully trust all the PMC committers to not abuse
> > their given rights, but my mother always told me to be careful about
> > strangers (no offense indented). ;-)
> 
> I reckon that we should go with the individual accounts
> so that we know who made changes, and add new accounts
> on demand. Committers can review and put changes into
> production, users/devs can edit. Committers use their
> ASF login IDs and users/devs choose their own name.
> 

Since it is an experiment like you said I would be for variant 1 (create
one editor/reviewer).

> > Roadmap:
> > > > - create forrest lenya-based Forrest Tuesday pub.
> > 
> > Do we agree on that? I strongly recommend it to set it up in our svn.
> 
> I don't see why it needs to be called
> "Forrest Tuesday publication". This whitebaord
> should be used at any time.

I did not give it a name. 

> 
> If Lenya don't have a basic publication, then we
> can develop it in our SVN and contribute it back.
> 

We should use the default pub till the forrest community wants their own
publication.

> > > > - create user
> > 
> > see the above mentioned alternatives.
> > 
> > > > - create content
> > 
> > on the 6th of September.
> 
> For the task at hand, yes. The main reason is to
> have a whiteboard to assist us with the XHTML move.
> 
> The secondary reason is to have a Lenya instance
> so that later we can enhance our Lenya input plugin.
> I don't want to see this first ForrestTuesday turn
> into a Lenya-Forrest integration exercise. This is
> a good time to kick-start, but we have other priorities. 
> 

Then we should use the cocoon or lenya wiki. I do not have time for
creating pubs for fun. If it should not become a basis for integration
then I do not see the point in spending my spare time for it.

BTW I want to announce that I will lay lower with forrest for a while.
There are too many things in my real life happening right now that I
need to leverage my time better. I will still be subscribed but only
doing work when I can (mostly that will be view related).

salu2

> -David
> 
> > > > - use the brand new lenya plugin to get the content into our docu
> > 
> > open ended.
> > 
> > salu2
> > 
> > thorsten
> > 
> > "Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
> > Hey you (Pink Floyd)
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)

Re: Forrest-lenya instance

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > > 
> > > Maybe we should think about a basic structure of *our* lenya pub, this
> > > way I can setup the instance with our structure and get rid of the
> > > sample.
> > 
> > We just want a flat directory structure at the moment.
> > This is a "whiteboard" wiki-like thingy for us to
> > experiment with. It is not yet our Forrest documentation
> > editing environment. That is a long way down the track.
> > 
> > Does that need a publication?
> 
> Hmm, to be bloody honest with you, my intend is to implement Ross idea
> of getting forrest devs started with lenya. I personally see too much
> work and effort that is duplicated (done by both projects) and this as
> opportunity to get both projects in sync to focus on their core
> competence. For example our plugins and lenya's modules *are* the same
> thing (better said addressing the same issue). This is just one example
> where we (speaking for both project) try to reinvent the wheel that
> cocoon made round for us, instead of contributing the enhancement of the
> wheel back to cocoon. ;-)

That paragraph does not sound like a joke, but the smiley
at the end indicates so. Anyway, i am treating it as serious.

I suggest that we keep developing our plugins here
at Forrest, and that Lenya keep on with their modules.

When Cocoon has real blocks happening then we will
all be able to interoperate better. There is no point
contributing back to Cocoon at this stage. Nor do i see
reasons for Lenya and Forrest to merge capabilities yet.
The design of plugins/blocks will change.

We are not reinventing Cocoon's wheel. Forrest built
upon that with the pass-through sitemaps and donated
that part back. More major changes need to wait for
real blocks.

> Now BT (back to topic), yes we need our own publication, for now only to
> clean up the default pub. The default pub is like our "forrest seed"
> with lots of examples. What we need is something like "forrest
> seed-basic". A cleanup of all the examples to get started. Then we can
> go enhance it and extend it for our needs. The "flat directory
> structure" we will need to define and yes, that is for now just a
> playground for us and not "yet our Forrest documentation editing
> environment".

Okay now i understand that we do need a very basic
"publication". You wondered in another thread whether
we needed one. I was trying to help make that decision.
Actually i am surprised that Lenya does not already have
a very basic publication that we can just use.

> > > How to we want to handle the user management?
> > > 
> > > Should I add all forrest committers as reviewer and the devs/user as
> > > editor. Or should I create one default editor and user? We need to make
> > > sure that nobody besides us can edit.
> > 
> > Can you explain a bit more about the difference between
> > those options?
> 
> We can add every single committer (to get started) to the ac. That let
> you log in as e.g. thorsten with pass XxXxX or david with pass YyYyYyY.
> That allow to track down specific changes by users/editors. I would
> setup the accounts on demand and notify every single committer about
> their password that I have choosen or alternatively the committer can
> send me the pass and I set it up. 
> 
> The alternative is to create a generic user/editor that you and me use
> with the same pass. Like we have e.g. in the lenya zone. That is quicker
> to setup and could be easily extended in future. The problem is when it
> comes to users/devs. I fully trust all the PMC committers to not abuse
> their given rights, but my mother always told me to be careful about
> strangers (no offense indented). ;-)

I reckon that we should go with the individual accounts
so that we know who made changes, and add new accounts
on demand. Committers can review and put changes into
production, users/devs can edit. Committers use their
ASF login IDs and users/devs choose their own name.

> Roadmap:
> > > - create forrest lenya-based Forrest Tuesday pub.
> 
> Do we agree on that? I strongly recommend it to set it up in our svn.

I don't see why it needs to be called
"Forrest Tuesday publication". This whitebaord
should be used at any time.

If Lenya don't have a basic publication, then we
can develop it in our SVN and contribute it back.

> > > - create user
> 
> see the above mentioned alternatives.
> 
> > > - create content
> 
> on the 6th of September.

For the task at hand, yes. The main reason is to
have a whiteboard to assist us with the XHTML move.

The secondary reason is to have a Lenya instance
so that later we can enhance our Lenya input plugin.
I don't want to see this first ForrestTuesday turn
into a Lenya-Forrest integration exercise. This is
a good time to kick-start, but we have other priorities. 

-David

> > > - use the brand new lenya plugin to get the content into our docu
> 
> open ended.
> 
> salu2
> 
> thorsten
> 
> "Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
> Hey you (Pink Floyd)

Re: Forrest-lenya instance

[Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>]

On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 17:55 +1000, David Crossley wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > 
> > Maybe we should think about a basic structure of *our* lenya pub, this
> > way I can setup the instance with our structure and get rid of the
> > sample.
> 
> We just want a flat directory structure at the moment.
> This is a "whiteboard" wiki-like thingy for us to
> experiment with. It is not yet our Forrest documentation
> editing environment. That is a long way down the track.
> 
> Does that need a publication?
> 

Hmm, to be bloody honest with you, my intend is to implement Ross idea
of getting forrest devs started with lenya. I personally see too much
work and effort that is duplicated (done by both projects) and this as
opportunity to get both projects in sync to focus on their core
competence. For example our plugins and lenya's modules *are* the same
thing (better said addressing the same issue). This is just one example
where we (speaking for both project) try to reinvent the wheel that
cocoon made round for us, instead of contributing the enhancement of the
wheel back to cocoon. ;-)

Now BT (back to topic), yes we need our own publication, for now only to
clean up the default pub. The default pub is like our "forrest seed"
with lots of examples. What we need is something like "forrest
seed-basic". A cleanup of all the examples to get started. Then we can
go enhance it and extend it for our needs. The "flat directory
structure" we will need to define and yes, that is for now just a
playground for us and not "yet our Forrest documentation editing
environment".

> > How to we want to handle the user management?
> > 
> > Should I add all forrest committers as reviewer and the devs/user as
> > editor. Or should I create one default editor and user? We need to make
> > sure that nobody besides us can edit.
> 
> Can you explain a bit more about the difference between
> those options?
> 

We can add every single committer (to get started) to the ac. That let
you log in as e.g. thorsten with pass XxXxX or david with pass YyYyYyY.
That allow to track down specific changes by users/editors. I would
setup the accounts on demand and notify every single committer about
their password that I have choosen or alternatively the committer can
send me the pass and I set it up. 

The alternative is to create a generic user/editor that you and me use
with the same pass. Like we have e.g. in the lenya zone. That is quicker
to setup and could be easily extended in future. The problem is when it
comes to users/devs. I fully trust all the PMC committers to not abuse
their given rights, but my mother always told me to be careful about
strangers (no offense indented). ;-)

Roadmap:
> > - create forrest lenya-based Forrest Tuesday pub.

Do we agree on that? I strongly recommend it to set it up in our svn.

> > - create user

see the above mentioned alternatives.

> > - create content

on the 6th of September.

> > - use the brand new lenya plugin to get the content into our docu

open ended.

salu2

thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)