Re: [NOTICE] xml-site CVS repository to be migrated to SVN

After republishing the site again after the latest changes, I see why my
approach may not be the best. mirrors.cgi on Windows has CRLF
line-endings and is copied as such to minotaur. Furthermore, no
executable permission is set. This could be avoided by setting different
properties on mirrors.cgi in SVN and adjusting the post-process script
in publish.xml but both problems are easily solveable with SVN. Sigh.

On 13.10.2005 10:31:18 Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Two reasons:
> - One step less for publishing the site. Because the whole process is so
> complicated and annoying people tend not to do anything. That's bad.
> - I don't like storing generated files in version control. It makes no
> sense IMO.
> 
> I agree that reverting changes may be a little bit more difficult, but
> with ForrestBot regenerating the site is a no-brainer. No hard feelings
> if we go back to committing the generated site to SVN but I don't like
> it.
> 
> On 13.10.2005 09:48:32 David Crossley wrote:
> > Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > > 
> > > Using Forrest 0.7 to create the xml.apache.org site and having had good
> > > experiences for the XML Graphics and FOP sites, I'm going to change the
> > > xml.apache.org deployment to use (local) ForrestBot.
> > 
> > Great.
> > 
> > > The generated site
> > > will not be committed to the SVN repository anymore, but directly
> > > uploaded using SCP to cvs.apache.org:/www/xml.apache.org. If someone
> > > doesn't agree with that, please tell me.
> > 
> > What is the reason for doing that?
> > 
> > For any projects that i have worked on, we have
> > remained with storing the generated docs in SVN.
> > It seems more efficient.
> > 
> > Also that is what infra wanted. It makes it possible
> > to restore a site easily. The people at [email protected]
> > are trying to work out better ways of publishing sites,
> > but not happened yet.
> > 
> > There are a couple of problems with doing stuff via scp.
> > One is that it uploads every doc, even if not changed.
> > Also it is harder to revert a change if we stuff up.
> > 
> > Even though i don't agree with using SCP, i am not
> > going to suggest changing it. What you have done does
> > work okay and xml-site is a small site and is not
> > receiving lots of changes.
> > 
> > Still, i am interested to know why you think SCP
> > is better.
> > 
> > -David
> 
> 
> Jeremias Maerki


Jeremias Maerki