forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: ForrestBot build for forrest-seed FAILED
Date Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:14:11 GMT
Gav.... wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thorsten Scherler []


>> Ross provided
>> ts/plugins-to-xdoc.xsl?r1=515849&r2=515848&pathrev=515849
>> The question that raises is ask by David commit message: "Replace
>> hard-coded URL to old usingPlugins doc with site: reference.
>> Note: Was there a reason for this?"
>> The answer gives us the forrestbot by failing.
>> I guess we should reverted like suggested by Ross.
> Ok , I've had another look now.
> We know the problem is due to the link not appearing in the site.xml file.
> Reverting the change will revert it for all webapp sites , yes?

All *plugin* sites, yes.

> So we can 
> A) Revert as suggested.
> B) Add a full URI to a site.xml entry instead for the test sites.
> I like B better because it is a workaround to only the affected builds, and
> leaves others intact and using it properly.

But that will still mean that the plugin docs will break and therefore 
we will not be able to deploy them.

A is the only usable option to stop 50+ Forrestbot emails, we need to 
revert the change. I only have email access via webmail right now and 
it's really annoying and, I'm sure, will be annoying our lurkers. 
Especially when we already know the solution.

> The problem has only arisen really because we have included a 'Plugins' tab
> and a label to only the plugins index page, within the sample sites. 

Plugins are designed to be housed elsewhere, thus our plugins index page 
leads offsite. The idea of the plugins tab is to provide a way back to 
the forrest site. Any other solution would be fine, but any link back to 
Forrest would result in the same issue - site: does not work.

> Maybe
> another answer is to either
> 1. include all information on Plugins in the sample sites, meaning the
> usingPlugins and pluginInfrastructure pages are there too, providing a
> complete set of information.

No, these are not "sample sites" they are documentation for the plugins. 
   As documentation they are published on the website. We do not want to 
duplicate information, such as usingPlugins and pluginInfrastructure 
across 20+ plugin docs sites.

Furthermore, I don't see how this would remove the link back to the core 
Forrest docs. Perhaps I am missing your point.

> 2. Remove the Plugins Tab and Index entry from the sample sites.

That is an option, as long as it means we have a dead end link that 
exists the Forrest site, possibly to some third party site. Personally, 
I prefer a simple workaround that works and does not create a dead end link.

> If anyone likes any of my preferences, I will apply whichever one suits
> best.

Please, someone do something about these mails. We knew the problem 
within hours of the original commit. Get a workaround in place then 
decide the long term solution.

I'm back on a proper connection tomorrow. I will revert the change 
straight away, that doesn't mean I won't welcome a better solution, it 
just means I don't think having these mails is helping us any in this 


View raw message