forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Koberg" <>
Subject RE: New Apache XML Site! :-)
Date Fri, 25 Oct 2002 23:01:28 GMT
This is exactly the problem a staging process is designed to solve.

You move from dev -> qa -> certified -> live

dev is what you are are doing now and then you go directly live.

A better process would be to promote the dev site to qa when you feel it is

qa has other people look at it. If they don't like what they see it goes back to
dev, if they agree they like what they see it is promoted to certified.

Some bot can come around and pick up the cert version daily (or whatever
interval). If nothing has changed perhaps the bot can skip it or just copy it up
to live because it is still the latest certified version.

There is plenty of involvement in cocoon's community to support the eyeballs to
qa (open to all??). Once the communtiy says 'good to go' or is silent then it is
ready to promote to cert to be picked up by the bot.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Noels []
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 1:08 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: New Apache XML Site! :-)
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>  > I'm happy to inform you that I just committed the new version of the
>  > xml site in CVS.
> Site looks bad - un-committed or un-updated files apparently - I tried
> to cvs update locally on daedalus (you have access there too, Nicola,
> and the website is in /www/ - to no avail. And no time to
> further investigate :-(
>  > If there are any problems, please contact
>  >
>  >
> Hm. Hmmm.
> 1) we did a bad job
> 2) you did a solo job
>  > This will make us have better graphics, automatic PDF creation,
>  > faster site, and most of all better bandwidth usage.
> Please let's be modest. In the heat of the reorg discussion, I see many
> people making bold claims and strong statements. The cocoon/forrest
> community is known not to fall into that trap. Let's keep it that way.
> Marketing is OK, but too much eagerness is simply bad publicity.
> We are stuck now with a site that looks bad, and is known to be
> generated using Forrest. Also, it seems like you simply copied the
> cleaned-up XML files I prepared once and generated the 'new website' out
> of it.
> Prior to doing so, you would as well have consulted the forrest-dev'ers,
> no? Did we contact the different projects prior to republishing to check
> on the accuracy if the common pages... no. Timeliness... no. Just a
> quick and dirty hack based on some source files I committed months ago.
> It's not because this is a can-do-ocracy that we should do things
> without enough consideration...
> Sorry if I seem pissed off, but that's because I'm currently lacking the
> time to help you with it, and you preferred going solo anyhow.
> </Steven>
> --
> Steven Noels                  
> Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center

View raw message