Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:07:39 +1000
From: David Crossley <crossley@apache.org>
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: Forrest-lenya instance
Message-ID: <20050902030739.GA11121@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
References: <43145754.5010906@apache.org>
 <1125408982.5191.79.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <20050830234855.GA3116@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
 <1125477163.5233.22.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <43157684.2010405@apache.org>
 <1125482407.5233.37.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <431584EA.9080909@apache.org>
 <1125486071.5233.81.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <20050901075547.GB8898@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
 <1125622966.4859.70.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1125622966.4859.70.camel@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i

Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > > 
> > > Maybe we should think about a basic structure of *our* lenya pub, this
> > > way I can setup the instance with our structure and get rid of the
> > > sample.
> > 
> > We just want a flat directory structure at the moment.
> > This is a "whiteboard" wiki-like thingy for us to
> > experiment with. It is not yet our Forrest documentation
> > editing environment. That is a long way down the track.
> > 
> > Does that need a publication?
> 
> Hmm, to be bloody honest with you, my intend is to implement Ross idea
> of getting forrest devs started with lenya. I personally see too much
> work and effort that is duplicated (done by both projects) and this as
> opportunity to get both projects in sync to focus on their core
> competence. For example our plugins and lenya's modules *are* the same
> thing (better said addressing the same issue). This is just one example
> where we (speaking for both project) try to reinvent the wheel that
> cocoon made round for us, instead of contributing the enhancement of the
> wheel back to cocoon. ;-)

That paragraph does not sound like a joke, but the smiley
at the end indicates so. Anyway, i am treating it as serious.

I suggest that we keep developing our plugins here
at Forrest, and that Lenya keep on with their modules.

When Cocoon has real blocks happening then we will
all be able to interoperate better. There is no point
contributing back to Cocoon at this stage. Nor do i see
reasons for Lenya and Forrest to merge capabilities yet.
The design of plugins/blocks will change.

We are not reinventing Cocoon's wheel. Forrest built
upon that with the pass-through sitemaps and donated
that part back. More major changes need to wait for
real blocks.

> Now BT (back to topic), yes we need our own publication, for now only to
> clean up the default pub. The default pub is like our "forrest seed"
> with lots of examples. What we need is something like "forrest
> seed-basic". A cleanup of all the examples to get started. Then we can
> go enhance it and extend it for our needs. The "flat directory
> structure" we will need to define and yes, that is for now just a
> playground for us and not "yet our Forrest documentation editing
> environment".

Okay now i understand that we do need a very basic
"publication". You wondered in another thread whether
we needed one. I was trying to help make that decision.
Actually i am surprised that Lenya does not already have
a very basic publication that we can just use.

> > > How to we want to handle the user management?
> > > 
> > > Should I add all forrest committers as reviewer and the devs/user as
> > > editor. Or should I create one default editor and user? We need to make
> > > sure that nobody besides us can edit.
> > 
> > Can you explain a bit more about the difference between
> > those options?
> 
> We can add every single committer (to get started) to the ac. That let
> you log in as e.g. thorsten with pass XxXxX or david with pass YyYyYyY.
> That allow to track down specific changes by users/editors. I would
> setup the accounts on demand and notify every single committer about
> their password that I have choosen or alternatively the committer can
> send me the pass and I set it up. 
> 
> The alternative is to create a generic user/editor that you and me use
> with the same pass. Like we have e.g. in the lenya zone. That is quicker
> to setup and could be easily extended in future. The problem is when it
> comes to users/devs. I fully trust all the PMC committers to not abuse
> their given rights, but my mother always told me to be careful about
> strangers (no offense indented). ;-)

I reckon that we should go with the individual accounts
so that we know who made changes, and add new accounts
on demand. Committers can review and put changes into
production, users/devs can edit. Committers use their
ASF login IDs and users/devs choose their own name.

> Roadmap:
> > > - create forrest lenya-based Forrest Tuesday pub.
> 
> Do we agree on that? I strongly recommend it to set it up in our svn.

I don't see why it needs to be called
"Forrest Tuesday publication". This whitebaord
should be used at any time.

If Lenya don't have a basic publication, then we
can develop it in our SVN and contribute it back.

> > > - create user
> 
> see the above mentioned alternatives.
> 
> > > - create content
> 
> on the 6th of September.

For the task at hand, yes. The main reason is to
have a whiteboard to assist us with the XHTML move.

The secondary reason is to have a Lenya instance
so that later we can enhance our Lenya input plugin.
I don't want to see this first ForrestTuesday turn
into a Lenya-Forrest integration exercise. This is
a good time to kick-start, but we have other priorities. 

-David

> > > - use the brand new lenya plugin to get the content into our docu
> 
> open ended.
> 
> salu2
> 
> thorsten
> 
> "Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
> Hey you (Pink Floyd)