incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Shahaf <...@daniel.shahaf.name>
Subject Re: suggested CMS workflows for ooo-site
Date Thu, 05 Jan 2012 01:00:30 GMT
Joe Schaefer wrote on Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 16:55:02 -0800:
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
> > To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
> > Cc: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>; infrastructure@apache.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 6:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: suggested CMS workflows for ooo-site
> > 
> > Joe Schaefer wrote on Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 09:52:39 -0800:
> >>  ----- Original Message -----
> >> 
> >>  > From: Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
> >>  > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>  > Cc: 
> >>  > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 12:40 PM
> >>  > Subject: Re: suggested CMS workflows for ooo-site 
> >>  > 
> >>  > 
> >>  > On Jan 4, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>  > 
> >>  >>  Also Dave get in the habit of checking buildbot for the
> >>  >>  build status of sledgehammer commits instead of waiting
> >>  >>  for svnmailer to figure out what to do with the massive
> >>  >>  diff it's trying to make sense of.  The url is 
> >>  >> 
> >>  >> 
> >>  >>  http://ci.apache.org/builders/ooo-site-site-staging
> >>  > 
> >>  > I do do that, but tend to wait for the email anyway. If there is no 
> > reason to 
> >>  > wait that will save time.
> >> 
> >>  Buildbot performs the commit back as the final step in the build,
> >>  so if buildbot thinks the build has completed successfully, you
> >>  do not need to wait for svnmailer to send out a notice to that effect.
> >> 
> >>  My experience is that the turnaround between sledgehammer commits
> >>  and eventual publication is about 1 hour: ~20 min for each step
> >>  along the way, all because of svn committing or merging
> > 
> > Instead of:
> > 
> > % cd production-wc
> > % svn merge $URL/to/staging
> > 
> > can you:
> > 
> > % svnmucc -mm rm $URL/to/production cp $somerev $URL/to/staging 
> > $URL/to/production
> 
> Not too fond of that approach as we'd lose the history of the production tree
> in the process.  Not every change to staging winds up being promoted.
> 

No we won't.  Just run 'svn log -qv' on the parent of the production tree.

> There is an alternative approach that I am reluctant to mention but might
> be the best solution for everyone: to use SSI as part of your templating system.
> The downside is that it adds a bit of conceptual complexity to the CMS
> as well as to people doing local builds as they will now need an SSI-enabled
> server to inspect their build results.
> 
> The upside is that sledgehammer commits would be a thing of the past as
> the Django templates would rarely need to be altered directly.  You'd just
> be altering individual files in content/ containing (markdown-converted)
> html fragments that the server would dynamically include into every page
> based on the SSI calls in the Django templates.

FWIW, Subverison uses that.

http://subversion.apache.org/
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/site/publish/

Mime
View raw message