You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Ferdinand Soethe <sa...@soethe.net> on 2005/05/10 23:29:03 UTC
Clean up freshsite to be just that
I'd like to reduce freshsite to be what the name says: a fresh site
w/o content and menus. Are there reasons to have it like this, do we
need to offer two different options like
forrest seed (for bare bones fresh site)
forrest demo (to generate a demo site)
If the latter is possible and required, I suggest to extend it
(gradually) to show more configuration options with tabs and site.
--
Ferdinand Soethe
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Prior to this change raw content was kept in a separate directory. This
> meant users had to manage two directory structures, which, more of ten
> than not, were the same. Now we just place the *raw* files in the xdocs
> directory. (which means the xdocs name is now misleading hence the
> proposal to remove it after 0.7).
That is why I think that we should remove xdocs content. WDYT?
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>>Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes - and perhaps you didn't know that because the docs need updating
>>>>(that's the issue I linked to earlier, hint hint - only if you have time
>>>>of course, please don't feel badgered by my point this out repeatedly)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>will do that when this whole issue is cleared up and descided and I
>>>know what is now and what will be.
>>
>>
>>For the 0.7 release it has been decided because it is too much work to
>>change it before the 0.7. The wider update is scheduled for 0.8.
>>
>>Images stay put for now.
>
>
>>xdocs remains as is for now.
>
> If this needs to be done. The sooner, the better.
This is only one part of a more wide ranging change. It requires a big
clean up of docs, which will take some time. These cahnges are scheduled
for 0.8 and have been (http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-187 ).
0.7 is already well overdue and it is important we get it out. I am -1
on delaying it any further.
Ross
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
>
>>
>> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Yes - and perhaps you didn't know that because the docs need updating
>>> (that's the issue I linked to earlier, hint hint - only if you have time
>>> of course, please don't feel badgered by my point this out repeatedly)
>>
>>
>>
>> will do that when this whole issue is cleared up and descided and I
>> know what is now and what will be.
>
>
> For the 0.7 release it has been decided because it is too much work to
> change it before the 0.7. The wider update is scheduled for 0.8.
>
> Images stay put for now.
> xdocs remains as is for now.
If this needs to be done. The sooner, the better.
> raw content (other than images) goes alongside xdocs
>
> All that needs doing is the docs get updated for the 0.7 release.
>
> Ross
>
>
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
>
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>
>>Yes - and perhaps you didn't know that because the docs need updating
>>(that's the issue I linked to earlier, hint hint - only if you have time
>>of course, please don't feel badgered by my point this out repeatedly)
>
>
> will do that when this whole issue is cleared up and descided and I
> know what is now and what will be.
For the 0.7 release it has been decided because it is too much work to
change it before the 0.7. The wider update is scheduled for 0.8.
Images stay put for now.
xdocs remains as is for now.
raw content (other than images) goes alongside xdocs
All that needs doing is the docs get updated for the 0.7 release.
Ross
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Ferdinand Soethe <sa...@soethe.net>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Yes - and perhaps you didn't know that because the docs need updating
> (that's the issue I linked to earlier, hint hint - only if you have time
> of course, please don't feel badgered by my point this out repeatedly)
will do that when this whole issue is cleared up and descided and I
know what is now and what will be.
>> But then I don't understand the ongoing discussion about putting
>> images in resources. Are they not also unprocessed content?
> Images seem to be an exception, but I can't tell you why. Perhaps we can
> move this part of the discussion to the docs reorg. thread.
Yes, fine by me. I'll mention it there.
--
Ferdinand Soethe
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> Sorry. Now I'm totally confused as to where raw content (= content
> that will be passed on without processing) should be from 0.7 on.
>
> If it is to be kept "alongside the to be processed content" as Ross
> wrote, we already have what I asked for and we only need to move xdocs
> in content.
Yes - and perhaps you didn't know that because the docs need updating
(that's the issue I linked to earlier, hint hint - only if you have time
of course, please don't feel badgered by my point this out repeatedly)
> But then I don't understand the ongoing discussion about putting
> images in resources. Are they not also unprocessed content?
Images seem to be an exception, but I can't tell you why. Perhaps we can
move this part of the discussion to the docs reorg. thread.
Ross
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Ferdinand Soethe <sa...@soethe.net>.
Sorry. Now I'm totally confused as to where raw content (= content
that will be passed on without processing) should be from 0.7 on.
If it is to be kept "alongside the to be processed content" as Ross
wrote, we already have what I asked for and we only need to move xdocs
in content.
But then I don't understand the ongoing discussion about putting
images in resources. Are they not also unprocessed content?
Ferdinand
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The way we handle raw content has changed (it no longer has its own
>>>directory it is kept alongside the "to be processed" content). As a
>>>consequence the documentation is incorrect. Someone needs to go through
>>>the docs and correct it. We also need some samples adding to fresh-site
>>>(or the proposed demo site).
>>
>>
>>Thanks for making that clearer. Will try to take care of that soon.
>>
>>But while we are at it and since I just suggested to go back to having
>>raw content in the same dir, can you tell what the reason behind the
>>separation was?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>--
>>Ferdinand Soethe
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> it was to allow raw content be processed without transformation (java
> files and such)
Prior to this change raw content was kept in a separate directory. This
meant users had to manage two directory structures, which, more of ten
than not, were the same. Now we just place the *raw* files in the xdocs
directory. (which means the xdocs name is now misleading hence the
proposal to remove it after 0.7).
Ross
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@apache.org>.
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
>
>
>
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>
>>The way we handle raw content has changed (it no longer has its own
>>directory it is kept alongside the "to be processed" content). As a
>>consequence the documentation is incorrect. Someone needs to go through
>>the docs and correct it. We also need some samples adding to fresh-site
>>(or the proposed demo site).
>
>
> Thanks for making that clearer. Will try to take care of that soon.
>
> But while we are at it and since I just suggested to go back to having
> raw content in the same dir, can you tell what the reason behind the
> separation was?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Ferdinand Soethe
>
>
>
it was to allow raw content be processed without transformation (java
files and such)
Cheers,
cheche
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Ferdinand Soethe <sa...@soethe.net>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> The way we handle raw content has changed (it no longer has its own
> directory it is kept alongside the "to be processed" content). As a
> consequence the documentation is incorrect. Someone needs to go through
> the docs and correct it. We also need some samples adding to fresh-site
> (or the proposed demo site).
Thanks for making that clearer. Will try to take care of that soon.
But while we are at it and since I just suggested to go back to having
raw content in the same dir, can you tell what the reason behind the
separation was?
Thanks,
--
Ferdinand Soethe
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 00:55 +0200, Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>RG> Perhaps you could start with
>>RG> http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-470
>>RG> as this is a blocker for the 0.7 release
>>
>>will try and look at that tomorrow: right now I understand only half
>>of what I'm reading there.
The way we handle raw content has changed (it no longer has its own
directory it is kept alongside the "to be processed" content). As a
consequence the documentation is incorrect. Someone needs to go through
the docs and correct it. We also need some samples adding to fresh-site
(or the proposed demo site).
> Me neither. ;-) I guess Ross meant mainly
> http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-362
I did *not* mean that one. That should *not* happen before 0.7 is
released. Too much work, it'll delay 0.7 for another month.
Ross
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Ferdinand Soethe <sa...@soethe.net>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> Me neither. ;-) I guess Ross meant mainly
> http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-362
No I don't think so, but this a good issue for the thread about
renaming things. Sorry for not having read the issues first. I'll
reply to this in the renaming thread.
--
Ferdinand Soethe
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 00:55 +0200, Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
>
>
>
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> RG> Perhaps you could start with
> RG> http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-470
> RG> as this is a blocker for the 0.7 release
>
> will try and look at that tomorrow: right now I understand only half
> of what I'm reading there.
>
Me neither. ;-) I guess Ross meant mainly
http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-362
> --
> Ferdinand Soethe
>
salu2
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Ferdinand Soethe <sa...@soethe.net>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
RG> Perhaps you could start with
RG> http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-470
RG> as this is a blocker for the 0.7 release
will try and look at that tomorrow: right now I understand only half
of what I'm reading there.
--
Ferdinand Soethe
Re: Clean up freshsite to be just that
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> I'd like to reduce freshsite to be what the name says: a fresh site
> w/o content and menus. Are there reasons to have it like this, do we
> need to offer two different options like
>
> forrest seed (for bare bones fresh site)
> forrest demo (to generate a demo site)
>
> If the latter is possible and required, I suggest to extend it
> (gradually) to show more configuration options with tabs and site.
It has been suggested a few times that we provide a bare bones site as a
seed as well as a demo site.
I think the demo site is needed as it shows what forrest can do quickly
and simply. The seed site used to be much simpler, but over time it has
grown into a demo site.
It would be great to see a bare bones site and an enhanced demo site.
Perhaps you could start with http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-470
as this is a blocker for the 0.7 release
Ross