incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: [RT] Super Simple Site Generation Tool
Date Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:38:46 GMT
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >>Forrest is much more than the "simple site generation tool" that the 
> >>subject says is wanted here, I recognise that Forrest may not be the 
> >>right tool for this job. I happen to disagree, but I recognise the 
> >>possibility.
> >
> >Well, if you believe Forrest could be, then do it :)  
> I think we *are* doing it. Leo just sent a very useful mail to our user 
> list and to myself (actually it is stuck in moderation since he is not 
> subscribed). I've prepared my response there.
> It seems that around 80% of the issues raised either have been addressed 
> or are in the process of being addressed. The problem is not one of 
> doing it, but accepting that we are doing it, and working with us to 
> understand it.
> Of course that remaining 20% is vital to us and very helpful feedback.
> >Some basic things 
> >that you've heard here -
> >
> >1) Don't make us checkout some fixed branch of source and build it. I 
> >was recently admonished for using the actual release from the project to 
> > build the Incubator site.   I used to want to build everything, 
> >including my Linux Kernels.  I'm too old now.
> I have no idea why you are using the release branch rather than the 
> binary release. There are no bug fixes in that branch that I am aware 
> of. If I am mistaken you could have asked us (via our dev list) to 
> create a binary snapshot for you - I'd have been more than happy to do so.
> I only just joined this list because I became aware of issues with 
> Forrest, I don't know the history here.

There are bugfixes. I would not have specified the release branch
if there was no need. Cannot think what at the moment but they
were important. Sure we could try to make an official release,
but our project is small, so that is an added burden.

Snapshot? Hmm maybe, sorry i had not thought of
doing that, just expected that the old hands
would have no trouble with SVN.

Geir you say "admonished". Please remember that your
commit of the generated docs was huge because you
reverted a bugfix by not using the specified version.
You slammed Forrest for the size of the commit.
I explained it and fixed it for you.

> >2) Reduce the surprises.  Consider that many people here have become 
> >accustomed - rightly or wrongly - to the way Anakia tries to render 
> >everything in the doc tree, and see what you can do to fix that and 
> >mimic that workflow and the user expectations that arise from knowing it.
> There are good reasons why we do not render everything in the document 
> tree, and we will never do so by default.
> If this ever becomes my own itch, I'll add a config property to 
> optionally include everything in the doc tree for users like yourself. 
> In the meantime, how to do it is explained in our FAQ, so should you 
> ever use Forrest again and you need this feature we'd welcome a patch.
> As for workflow, I think I covered this in earlier messages, Forrest 
> does support the workflow outlined by Leo and yourself.
> >3) When I touch something via browser in 'forrest run' mode, WRITE THE 
> >CHANGE TO DISK.  I (as the user) think that I'm looking at the site as 
> >rendered, and was really stumped when no such change really happened.

However the trouble was that in a prior commit
you had removed the sole relative link to the document.

> This is a new feature request I've never heard before. It actually makes 
> alot of sense, and like all good ideas is really obvious to anyone but a 
> developer who is too comfortable with the tool.
> It would address a common concern (have to render the whole site even if 
> a single page has changed). I'll look into this one on the Forrest dev list.
> >3) Don't expect that I'm going to go and read Forrest docs to do what I 
> >(as the user) think of as basic things.  I won't.   I did read the 
> >5-step on the Forrest site that fateful saturday when I was trying to 
> >fix that orphan page, and I thought I did all the right things.  I 
> >supposed I did from your POV - it's just that my "right things" and your 
> >"right things" are different, and hence the gap.
> Yes, I can accept that that our "right things" are different. But I'm 
> still disappointed that when your "right thing" didn't work as expected 
> you "banged your head against a wall" for hours rather than spend just 
> five minutes sending a mail to our lists to get the answer that is now 
> in our FAQ.

Also i saw Gier's 'svn commit' message to Incubator site
containing frustrated comments and immediately explained
the problem. Everbody remember that the world is round.
If you have a problem, then ask immediately. Don't stew.

> If you had you would probably be saying "well it confused the hell out 
> of me, but the Forrest guys explained what was going on and showed me 
> how to fix it pretty quickly". Then I wouldn't need to defend what we do 
> in public forums like this.
> >Thanks for sticking with us here on this.  I know what it's like to be 
> >piled on in a public forum, and none of us meant to do that.  It's just 
> >that there is legitimate frustration.

What amazes me is that i had tried to ease that
frustration two months ago by suggesting alternatives
and removing the need to attack Forrest. Unfortunately
people missed it, so the frustration simmered.


> It does seem to have finally boiled down to a few legitimate 
> frutstrations. Thank you for being patient enough to get to the bottom 
> of these concerns.
> (wow I think we reached a mutual consensus here :-))
> Ross

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message