devicemap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Radu Cotescu <>
Subject Re: website prototype update
Date Mon, 29 Dec 2014 23:02:27 GMT
Hi Reza,

We could definitely set up the publishing environment on our devicemap-vm
box. The same commands from [10] could be used for that.

To summarise, we have three options when it comes to publishing website
updates with Jekyll:

1. Set up the environment on the developer's box
2. Use the Vagrant template - all developers running the VM defined by
Vagrant would use the same environment
3. Configure devicemap-vm as a staging environment for the website


[10] -

On Tuesday, 30 December 2014, Reza Naghibi <>

> So is it not possible to get this solution hosted?
> As for the metal I own... a phone, iPad, a old mini computer, and my ec2
> micro. If we could get the solution hosted, its going to greatly lower the
> barrier to push updates. Can we use the devicemap-vm?
> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Radu Cotescu
> <javascript:;>> </div><div>Date:12/29/2014  1:48
> (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: devicemap-dev <
> <javascript:;>> </div><div>Cc: Reza Naghibi <
> <javascript:;>> </div><div>Subject: Re: website prototype update
> </div><div>
> </div>Hi,
> The design on b.a.o is horrible. :( Leaving that aside I'd like to have
> all our info organised on the same website. BTW, the b.a.o doesn't provide
> any SEO AFAICS (check view-source:
> While I agree that editing on c.a.o is simpler, why do you think that the
> Jekyll prototype comes with high costs? What are the steps in the proposed
> publishing scenario that you would deem as too difficult for a bunch of
> developers?
> Thanks,
> Radu
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> Have you considered using for the
> blogs/news/SEO side of things that your prototype seems to cover? We
> can get a blog just by asking, and we could keep the main site for
> more static information (and still graft your CSS on it).
> I agree that having a single website that does it all is nice, but as
> I said the cost in terms of lost ease of maintenance is high, and that
> gets worse as project members come and go as is often the case in our
> projects.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message