forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Forrest + Lenya (Re: [PROPOSAL] A CMS for our Docs)
Date Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:56:03 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

(cc'd to Lenya Dev for their comments as well - please reply-all)


> Looking at the Doco document [1] I see that Lenya and Forrest are not 
> directly interacting, as both talk to a common repository.

Right now, what we have is:

--- committers ---. .---- Non-Committers ---
                   | |
                   | |
+---------+    +-------+    +----------+
| Forrest |<---| Lenya |<-->|Lenya Repo|
+---------+    +-------+    +----------+

(I've simplified by ignoring other repository types, but we should 
remember Forrest can now integrate content from multiple repositories, 
for example, Tim has the Locationmap working with a slide repo and you 
know that we have Daisy too)

This architecture does not allow for committers to write docs with their 
preferred tools via SVN, as has been requested. Nor does it keep the 
published artifacts in SVN as is desired on Apache projects. So I see 
the target architecture like this:

-------- committers ------------. .---- Non-Committers ---
                                 | |
                                 | |
+---------+    +---------+    +-------+    +----------+
| Forrest |<---| SVN     |<---| Lenya |--->|Lenya Repo|
+---------+    +---------+    +-------+    +----------+
                    .               /|\          |
                   /|\               |___________|
               | Committers |
               | Tools      |

So non-committers edit freely in the Lenya repo but cannot publish 
within Lenya. When an edit is reviewed and published by a committer, 
that change is propagated to SVN.

Committers can use whatever tool they prefer, working directly with SVN 
or with Lenya.

In this model there is the potential for conflict between edits in the 
Lenya Repo that have not yet been published and edits by committers 
working directly with SVN. In my view this is no more of a problem than 
the potential for conflicts between in progress edits on individual 
checked out copies of SVN, or at least if we stay on top of publishing 
changes to Lenya this should be the case. What do others think about this?

> What do you think about this architecture, is it really needed? I'm not 
> sure it's *that* different from asking Lenya to get the docs for us, as 
> it's a simple URL request. Basically, Lenya would be doing what the 
> SLIDE+LENYA combo does in the graphic, thus removing the need for DASL 
> that only Slide at Apache has, making us use Subversion.

I agree. The above is very similar to the original proposal minus the 
mail workflow)

> What remains to do are diffs.

The above gives us diffs of published documents but Lenya does not 
publish good diffs of edits of its own repository. However, the Lenya 
community are addressing this (I have a Summer of Code applicant who has 
expressed interest in this aspect and a couple of Lenya devs have agreed 
to co-mentor).

> I'm not sure that the mail workflow is 
> something we really need ATM. IMHO just adding editors that cannot 
> publish, along with diffs, is something that gives us enough control.

I agree. The mail workflow is a nice have. It would be wonderful to be 
able to publish simple changes by replying to a mail as is proposed in 
[1]. But  we can manage with the diffs and a link to an URL to publish 
the changes, and another to reject the changes.


> [1]

View raw message