incubator-wadi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <>
Subject Re: web site resources?
Date Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:05:06 GMT

Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:

> Why would you edit the HTML?   That's like editing the jar. then who checks in jars?  Not many people do.  So why would we
check in our output?

> You haven't had a problem with Geronimo's approach, have you?

Its a different paradigm...yes?  Are we not using a tool like maven to
create the site.

>> IMHO, doing the maven thing is a better way...thats my
>> less.  You won't change this.
> Thanks for keeping an open mind.

Oh come on Geir...this is a ludicrous statement.  My mind is open...I
just prefer to do it a way I am most comfortable with, just as you do
with your way.  We are beating a really dead horse here...its really not
a big deal.  Lets vote on it and go the route all want to that
closed minded?

> Just as an exercise in helping me understand why your mind is so made
> up, at least tell me why.  You haven't given one technical reason other
> than "others do it".

I have and I explained myself clearly.  We don't source control the
output of a generated website for the same reason we do not source
control a jar.  Its the output of the source.  The "source control"
should be implemented on the "source".  Also *sigh* confusion over which
 is the editable version...the output or the source.

> I've explained the benefits of checking in the artifacts :
> 1) it ensures that you know exactly what changes are going "to production"

So can the source.

> 2) Others can oversee the same thing - what changes are going "to
> production"

Source helps too...they can do a "mvn site".  Its a 2 second process.
We can also deploy to a "dev" site, yes?

> 3)It provides a log of exactly what went to production, when, and by
> whom, with history.

Does the source not show this?

> Why is it better to *not* check in the artifacts?

Duplicated effort.  Confusion over what is edited...the source or the

>> I personally have subscribed to the site generation methodology and I
>> like it.  As for commits and seeing them, its very simple and a lot
>> easier to read a commit based on APT (almost plain text) than it reading
>> the raw HTML, so I cannot agree with you on those points.
> Except you aren't publishing the APT.  Just like you don't exceute
> source, you execute binary - hence, you compile the source and test the
> binary.
> You are arguing that no testing or QA is needed.  I'm saying that it is.

No...who said that? I surely didn't.

> You still commit the APT anyway, so you can see that.  However, changing
> source material for a site can change more than one output artifact. How
> do you check them if you only read the source?

DeDeploy to a "dev" site.  Or run "mvn
site" yourself.

>> Lets do this according to the Apache way and put out a vote to commit
>> the site or just the source.  It should end there.  If everyone wants
>> the site committed, then so be it.
> Calling for a vote mid conversation is not "the Apache way", nor is
> appealing to mob rule.

How is it then?  You and I agree to disagree...we both want to do it our
way...allow others to chime in.  In the end it will come to a vote.
IMHO, this is a such a beaten horse and small well as we
have much bigger fish to fry...we are wasting wayyyyy too much energy on
this.  I am is voting not the Apache Way or not bring a
resolution to this?

>> Is this ok?  Can we agree to disagree on the web site subject based on
>> our personal preferences and let the majority rule?
> I'd prefer to hear why it's better to publish blindly to production
> rather than commit the same materials and let others have a chance to
> review.  It doesn't change the tool you are using - it just adds some
> minor steps.

I think we have gone over this several times.  Create a dev site.  Let
people make their comments on that.  Seems to me like a good happy medium.

> All I'm suggesting is that after generating the material, you do a svn
> commit, ssh to the machine, svn co.  Yes, it's two additional
> [scriptable] steps, but I think that we get a lot out of it.  I don't
> think I've seen seen an argument to what the downside is.

I have and I did...we are checking in output and its like checking in
our jars.  Confusion over what gets edited...the source or the
output...thats the huge downside.

Have I repeated myself enough?  We are going in circles on this...lets
come to a quick conclusion on this...please.
> geir
>> Jeff
>>> geir

View raw message