incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Feedback on the CMS
Date Fri, 11 May 2012 19:49:21 GMT
>________________________________
> From: Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org 
>Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 2:32 PM
>Subject: Re: Feedback on the CMS
> 
>
>On May 11, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> Hi Joe,
>> 
>> On May 11, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> 
>>> With 1100 builds so far the ooo-site CMS instance
>>> is only 350 builds behind www.apache.org as the
>>> most-used CMS tree so far.  I monitor the CMS logs
>>> daily to evaluate usage and this project publishes
>>> about as often as all our other projects combined,
>>> which really makes me wonder where we'd be here if
>>> the org had never created the CMS in the first place.
>> 
>> I wonder too, but it would have been very painful.
>> 
>> The enhancements made to the build process over the last year have made this use
possible.
>> 
>>> The ooo-site is far and away the largest instance at
>>> over 9GB total.  The reason I'm writing here is to
>>> ask general questions about user satisfaction with
>>> the CMS:
>>> 
>>> 1) Is there any aspect of the CMS that needs immediate
>>>   improvement?
>> 
>> I would like read_text_file to be able to handle BOM characters without issue.


The CMS now ignores BOMs.


>> 
>>> 2) Are you satisfied with the workflow, or are there areas
>>>   that could stand improvement?
>> 
>> Pretty much am.
>> 
>>> 3) Is there anything that should be done to encourage more
>>>   users who are not committers to use the CMS to submit patches
>>>   to the list?
>> 
>> Direct submission of the patch to BZ or JIRA including name, etc.
>> Configured on a project by project basis.


Yeah well no ;-).  Nice idea, just tricky to implement easily
across both bug trackers.  I'll think about it more as time goes on.

>> 
>>> 4) Are there any UI features you'd like to see implemented,
>>>   either in the web interface or the publication script?
>> 
>> Warnings when
>> 
>> (a) a staging build is in process.
>> (b) when the  change is in lib or templates and might require more than an instant
to stage.
>
>> (c) when there are unpublished staged changes and who is responsible. This allows
co-ordination.


This week I've added support for (a) to the publishing script.
(b) I'm not quite sure how I'd implement in the webui, but agree
something along those lines would be interesting. For (c) maybe
some svn log call will suffice.


Thanks for the reply!


Mime
View raw message