forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: latest forrest can't build incubator site
Date Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:50:43 GMT

Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

My apologies for the problems Forrest is giving the Incubator Project.
I feel responsible for it, having proposed it in the first place.

I think that Forrest has been a serious problem for active collaboration 
on the site, and wish to fix this. If this does not happen in a 
reasonable time, I'll personally ask to drop it's usage till it becomes 
more usable for this purpose.

Now on to the replies... (let's continue this thread on the forrest dev 

> that makes it better.. but it does *not* restore the appearance
> we had/{want?}.  observe the difference between what we have/want:
> and what the above change gives us:

This is a new version of the skin that was used before. The changes were 
made to use more CSS and make the fonts smaller (the size is 
customizable), as many have complained that they were too big 
(especially in navigation). It is unfortunate that we are also now 
deciding to do another change in the skin format, to make it fully 

> specifically:
> 1. the tab (shape,font,size,highlighting} is substantially different.
> 2. the print/pdf icons in the upper right have been shrunken to things
>    barely recognisable.
> 3. the text in the 'search' box has changed from white to black,
>    reducing readability.
> 4. worst of all, the body has changed so that it now has a toc at the
>    beginning, pushing the meat of the page down.

This last point is configurable in skinconf.xml... the TOC can be set to 
less levels or disabled. (IIRC the <toc> element)

Another unwanted backwards incompatible change :-/

> which leads
> ** me to be concerned that making that change, which should make the
> ** derby page look like the 'after' picture, will break *other* pages
> ** already on the site.

The whole site has to change AFAIK unfortunately.

> i really appreciate the improvement, but what do we need to do to regain
> our original look-and-feel?

We have deleted the old skin as it does not use the new Forrest 
features. As it seems this is not well seen by our users. I'll see if we 
  will decide to revert this "imposed" skin upgrade.

> i'm not sure i entirely buy the 'was built with 0.5.1' argument, since
> ian holsman supposedly built the looked-right derby page on his own machine
> using 0.6-dev, with no skin/config changes, and then uploaded it.

0.6-dev has changed fast in the skins lately, so it could just be that 
he used a previous 0.6-dev version.

> this is not a slam against forrest by any means; i love forrest's potential.
> if anything, it's a criticism of the choice to use it for the i.a.o site,
> which is maintained largely by forrest non-users.  forrest is a moderately
> complex beast, and is still evolving.  someone (presumably whomever was
> originally so gung-ho for forrest that it set up/converted the i.a.o site
> to use it) should track the changes to forrest that are going to affect our
> use of it, and make appropriate modifications to the i.a.o site.

That's me IIUC... the fact is that we are trying to make it totally 
backwards compatible, and I thought that it still was. It seems that the 
forced skin change is the major culprit.

 >  i don't
> think it's unreasonable for everyone updating the i.a.o site to know how to
> *use* forrest (update-pages-and-go), but i *do* think it's a bit over the top
> to expect them to know how to configure it and know what changes to make
> to track forrest's own evolution.

Of course. These problems have come up because Forrest (the project) has 
been very bad at releasing, and this has forced me to use the dev 
version to update the site. We have decided new rules and dates for 
releasing, so after 0.6 the Incubator can saftely generate the site with 
a fixed version.

> moving on to how-to questions concerning the cwiki format:

You can find a reference here:

As for *.cwiki, it seems to be creating issues instead of just being a 
simple format, as it gives validation problems without being able to be 
validated. Would a change to using plain *.html (still digested by 
Forrest) be a better option?

> 1. is there any way to create a prominent box for important notes?


> 2. is there any way to include [url] and ''italic'' inside a table?
>    (those seem to end the table def)


> 3. how does one signal bold text?


Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message