Mailing-List: contact dev-help@royale.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@royale.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: omuppi1@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAMFKFRiFGc7MpNrDv0Z7foXXUm2Zc_T6GQQ+pa4AWhZ8vt3cNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMFKFRgqKs2CT8ZdV5d-CfY-rmiMDugE4CyWLO4pFmmG2KbziA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8C23DCDA-3F0A-46B7-B1BD-74EC8C23B73D@comcast.net> <CAMFKFRi1=WeDsZ54+52YBdEQONPDmz9YoG8fGspTpEgv+JpN_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D614C830.AC7F8%aharui@adobe.com> <C5563132-C711-4FE2-9966-A242A3A0A71D@comcast.net>
 <D614CC31.AC822%aharui@adobe.com> <E37BA156-0E61-4E0D-840A-B12E8EF8DB31@comcast.net>
 <D616D4F5.AC9E0%aharui@adobe.com> <1C38478F-6617-476E-B9C6-A1491E6569A3@gmail.com>
 <CAMFKFRhpLHPHyo2srU4rnF+pd1hmQTJVmp0os5_x+ur9_APfxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D61759A3.ACA3E%aharui@adobe.com> <9E26993D-97E2-48C8-9014-F3D9F2653F10@gmail.com>
 <CAMFKFRh61LJ+vndzX81oL_hF9kHGnGW-f7pXgpyaFue8EO56aA@mail.gmail.com>
 <D61783D3.ACA8F%aharui@adobe.com> <CAMFKFRhny5LsKXuknpVt=hTCE2qhdua=MWU3gjH_P1U1d5U7kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BN6PR12MB1268FADB436980F1319B1417C85B0@BN6PR12MB1268.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAMFKFRhJOyspU7HmdLjohU=U7n9JGLFc_zVdABnnM3WEFd7wsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACK5iZc=u2QaHJYFCnmatVL_SMeYApp0GK-5j40mKyN_YGxUyg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMFKFRiFGc7MpNrDv0Z7foXXUm2Zc_T6GQQ+pa4AWhZ8vt3cNg@mail.gmail.com>
From: OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosmallm@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:51:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CACK5iZf2sKKBT4Jerup-6NCYvLv9jdxKQ8CGEXs71fCQw5xWkA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Apache Royale static web site
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045d9a141792cd055cb32c24"
archived-at: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:51:40 -0000

--f403045d9a141792cd055cb32c24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 so=
me
> 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 t=
he
> > 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=E2=80=99t=
 perform
> > well
> > > > enough we=E2=80=99ll 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=E2=80=99ll get.
> > > >
> > > > Also, if new people really want to contribute to out site, I=E2=80=
=99d 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 mor=
e
> > > 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 ou=
r
> > 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=E2=
=80=99t
> > > > 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
> informaci=C3=B3n privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje=
 por
> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma v=C3=
=ADa y
> proceda a su destrucci=C3=B3n.
>
> De la vigente Ley Org=C3=A1nica de Protecci=C3=B3n 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 prestaci=C3=B3n de=
l
> servicio o informaci=C3=B3n solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso=
,
> rectificaci=C3=B3n, cancelaci=C3=B3n y oposici=C3=B3n de sus datos dirigi=
=C3=A9ndose a nuestras
> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentaci=C3=
=B3n
> necesaria.
>

--f403045d9a141792cd055cb32c24--