www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: long term goal: reliable services for developers
Date Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:17:29 GMT
 
Is the /www area on people.apache.org really considered a staging site?   As 
far as I know, I cannot (easily) point a browser at it to make sure the output 
looks correct and such.    Maybe setup https on p.a.o to direct things like
http://cxf.staging.apache.org 
to the appropriate /www dir?

Several times now I've had a couple pages that "worked" in the Confluence 
staging are (cwiki.apache.org/CXF), but when synced off of cwiki, they stopped 
working.   Between the delay in the sync from cwiki -> people and the delay 
for my cron to sync from the confluence->export to /www/cxf and then the delay 
syncing from /www/cxf to the live site, it was SEVERAL hours before we figured 
it out, and several more before a fix would sync.

Dan


On Wed August 26 2009 4:49:34 am Justin Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 09:23, Jukka Zitting<jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Martin Cooper<martinc@apache.org> wrote:
> >> I'm all for speedy and automated deployment, but I just want to throw
> >> in one thing that has been deemed important in previous discussions of
> >> this topic (of which there have been many, over the years). That is
> >> the notion of having a staging area for proofing prior to live
> >> deployment. Once the site is built, it should be made available
> >> somewhere so that it can be checked over by a real live person before
> >> going live. Obviously this is to prevent inadvertent live site
> >> screw-ups.
> >
> > In all the CI site build setups I've created, the CI build simply runs
> > the same site build command that the committer uses locally to check
> > the generated site. And the CI builds will only deploy the site if the
> > build command finishes successfully, so if you're paranoid you could
> > even add explicit site tests to the process.
>
> The issues I'd imagine (based on my experience) would be:
>
> 1. typos
> 2. unclosed tags, e.g. bolding extending to the end of the paragraph
> 3. accidentally-broken links, e.g. if the closer.cgi link format is screwed
> up
>
> Writing automated tests for that kind of thing is hard to do and they
> can be hard to anticipate.  I'd prefer to be able to check on a
> staging site, as Martin suggests.

-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog

Mime
View raw message