royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache Royale static web site
Date Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:51:31 GMT
I agree.  We might want to avoid that.

Looks like the option of pointing to a wp.com site has been done already.

Can we push for this?

Thanks,
Om

On Oct 29, 2017 10:37 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
wrote:

> Hi Om,
>
> I think that's the better option, but my question is how to do this.
>
> How we can put the static generated site live under royale.apache.org
> without having that code on some repo? (the latest is very important)
> can we do this? do you know how to do it?
>
> note: remember that we don't want to upload the actual website code to some
> public repo due to commercial code licenses (movedo theme license)
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> 2017-10-29 2:10 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosmallm@gmail.com>:
>
> > I suggest we just release what Carlos as a static website for now.
> > As time goes by, volunteers can build up a separate website using just
> > Royale.  At some point we can simply swap out the wp.com site with the
> new
> > Royale based website.
> >
> > There is absolutely no requirement that the new site has to look like the
> > wp.com.  So, worrying about legal implications of maintaining the same
> > look
> > and feel is premature.
> >
> > Let's not make perfect the enemy of the good.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Yishay for your words
> > >
> > > 2017-10-28 19:09 GMT+02:00 Yishay Weiss <yishayjobs@hotmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Carlos, I agree that our resources are limited and this this might
> not
> > be
> > > > the best way to spend them at this point. However, there are some
> > points
> > > > that have not been mentioned in this discussion that make me think we
> > > > should try to move our site to Royale.
> > > >
> > > > One is that we claim to be different to other frameworks in that
> > overhead
> > > > can be much smaller. A site that performs at the level of a classic
> > > static
> > > > site would be a significant proof of concept. If it doesn’t perform
> > well
> > > > enough we’ll have some information on where we can improve in that
> > > regard.
> > > >
> > > > Related, we need to finally start eating our dog food. The more
> visible
> > > > our dog food, the more feedback we’ll get.
> > > >
> > > > Also, if new people really want to contribute to out site, I’d much
> > > rather
> > > > have them learn Royale than WP.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's ok. I  only said that we are run out of resources and I don't
> see
> > > many people available to make this effort.
> > > In my case, my plan was to focus on design to bring something good to
> > > production, but didn't expect such problems with something we should
> put
> > > online, complete with real content and focus on other things.
> > > In my case, I would prefer to donate my tiny time in other things more
> > > needed. In concrete I prefer to donate in "theme" feature, styling
> > express,
> > > and so on...
> > > But if someone wants to work on replicate the site with Royale our
> other
> > > html plain code, that's right.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In other words, whether or not Royale ends up being a good tool for
> > > > classic web sites I see some reasons to try and achieve that for our
> > own
> > > > site.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, suppose I wanted to replicate your site in Royale just for
> the
> > > > heck of it. Would that be ok from a legal stand-point? I couldn’t
> > > > understand that from the thread so far.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If we recreate the site with our own set of CSS, JS, that's right.
> Nobody
> > > could say us nothing since no commercial code is involved there.
> > > As well, If we put the actual static generated site online, without
> > having
> > > to upload the code to any repo, that's alright as well, since is the
> > normal
> > > use, and the rest of people using that theme is doing the same.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your considerations.
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, and great work so far.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
>
> Carlos Rovira
>
> Director General
>
> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>
> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>
>
> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
>
>
> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener
> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por
> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y
> proceda a su destrucción.
>
> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le comunicamos
> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC
> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del
> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso,
> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a nuestras
> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación
> necesaria.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message