Re: Website Platform Discussion
> On Jun 22, 2017, at 9:05 AM, Derek Atkinswrote: > > Hi, > > Sorry for the delay in responding; I was on vacation.. > > "David T." writes: > >> Derek, > [snip] >> I will note that one of the problems I see with the website/wiki >> presence is precisely its static nature. Pages and information seem to >> get on the sites and never change or get updated. > > I don't think that changing the website storage system would change > this. Getting the website changed is a simple "git pull request", and > even if the underlying site changed to something else, I don't see this > process changing. What that says to me is that changing to a CMS wont > make it any easier to change the content. > >> A number of the wiki >> pages I was just looking at had references to “new” features for v1.8, >> along with links to discussions in the mailing lists ca. 2002. There >> were references to resources that have long ago disappeared off the >> Internet, as well as discussions about issues that are no longer >> relevant to GnuCash in 2017—like discussions about code to create SQL >> data from an XML data file, which while perhaps still interesting, are >> nonetheless rendered rather moot with the incorporation of the SQL >> back end in 2.4. > > Again, I dont see how changing the underlying infrastructure would help > here. > > To me, the issue is a lack of "maintainers". We would need people who > are responsible for the website and wiki content, monitor it, edit it, > ensure that it remains current and up to date. > > I agree that the wiki is probably easier for the majority of users > because it doesn't use git. But I'm perfect happy adding more people to > the "website" commiter ACL, giving more people the ability to push > updates to the website directly. > >> As for the ongoing maintenance of a cms, I agree that it can be a >> pain. However, at least with Drupal, I find the process pretty quick >> to manage (in fact, I just installed an update today), and assuming >> that the GnuCash site would continue to be a basic site, it would >> likely not require many additional modules—thus keeping the update >> routines simpler. Moreover, with a bundled cms, you have web >> developers who are maintaining awareness of security issues and >> pushing out fixes for them. In this day of increased threat vectors >> online, can we be sure that the GnuCash site is immune to these new >> threats? > > Considering right now www.gnucash.org is a quazi static website that > uses PHP for NEWS and Localization, I'm pretty sure it's immune. The > attack surface of the current www.gnucash.org site is fairly small. I > feel there's more of an attack vector against code/wiki.gnucash.org > specifically because it's running more complicated software (namely > mediawiki). > >> Whether a new platform would encourage the community to maintain a >> vibrant web presence or not is of course debatable. but I think it’s a >> fair one to have. > > Fair enough, but I would maintain that changing to a new platform that > still gates through GIT would, in essence, not change the community > willing to maintain a vibrant web presence. At least I suspect it's > "git" that's the barrier to entry and not the fact that it's a raw > PHP-based website vs Drupal/et al. > > In short -- I don't see how adding (or changing to) Drupal would > increase the number of people willing and able to keep the website > content up to date. I suggested that a switch to a CMS might be necessary after David suggested and Geert supported having a carousel on the front page. Introducing and maintaining features like that in hand-maintained PHP strikes me as rather technical as well as error prone and likely to introduce security risks as AFAIK none of us are expert at that kind of code. I don't know Drupal but I do maintain a Joomla-based website (http://californiaancestors.org). Joomla allows non-programmers to easily edit content in a more-or-less WYSIWYG editor. The editor also has a "source" mode for working directly with the html and css to get exactly the look you want. That would certainly broaden the base of potential contributors to the many who wig out at the very thought of opening a code editor. The php code behind the CMS is certainly amenable to version control, but the content is stored in a database (typically MySQL). It would be possible to get that under git control but it would take a bit of work, as would implementing a post-update hook to convert a git diff into the necessary PHP-MyAdmin commands to update the content database. Regards, John Ralls ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Website Platform Discussion
On donderdag 22 juni 2017 18:05:40 CEST Derek Atkins wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for the delay in responding; I was on vacation.. > > "David T."writes: > > Derek, > > [snip] > > > I will note that one of the problems I see with the website/wiki > > presence is precisely its static nature. Pages and information seem to > > get on the sites and never change or get updated. > > I don't think that changing the website storage system would change > this. Getting the website changed is a simple "git pull request", and > even if the underlying site changed to something else, I don't see this > process changing. What that says to me is that changing to a CMS wont > make it any easier to change the content. > I disagree. A CMS based website has several parts, to simplify: - the CMS code with optional modules (drupal/mediawiki/...) - the theme - the content The first two would be managed in git, the latter would be managed by a webinterface (and stored partly in a db/partly in a data directory on the server). So the initial work of getting the website up and running technically and getting the theme right will require git interaction. However altering content would not. From the mere reactions to this thread it looks like several people would definitely volunteer to help out maintaining the content. However I think that will only work if the content is not managed in a developer-centric mindset (aka via git). I would love to see those volunteers in come in action. If separating content management from code and theme management would support this, I really think we should consider it. > >A number of the wiki > > > > pages I was just looking at had references to “new” features for v1.8, > > along with links to discussions in the mailing lists ca. 2002. There > > were references to resources that have long ago disappeared off the > > Internet, as well as discussions about issues that are no longer > > relevant to GnuCash in 2017—like discussions about code to create SQL > > data from an XML data file, which while perhaps still interesting, are > > nonetheless rendered rather moot with the incorporation of the SQL > > back end in 2.4. > > Again, I dont see how changing the underlying infrastructure would help > here. > > To me, the issue is a lack of "maintainers". We would need people who > are responsible for the website and wiki content, monitor it, edit it, > ensure that it remains current and up to date. > And I argue this lack of "maintainers" is in part because of the way we manage our main site. Note a recent thread on obsolete pages in the wiki immediately resulted in several people willing to go over the wiki and refresh it. The wiki has no "commit through git" management wrapped around it. > I agree that the wiki is probably easier for the majority of users > because it doesn't use git. But I'm perfect happy adding more people to > the "website" commiter ACL, giving more people the ability to push > updates to the website directly. I continue to argue allowing more people to use git is not going to bring us more people willing to keep the content up to date simply because git itself is a pretty effective deterrent for non-developers (who would otherwise be perfectly capable of writing good website content). > > > As for the ongoing maintenance of a cms, I agree that it can be a > > pain. However, at least with Drupal, I find the process pretty quick > > to manage (in fact, I just installed an update today), and assuming > > that the GnuCash site would continue to be a basic site, it would > > likely not require many additional modules—thus keeping the update > > routines simpler. Moreover, with a bundled cms, you have web > > developers who are maintaining awareness of security issues and > > pushing out fixes for them. In this day of increased threat vectors > > online, can we be sure that the GnuCash site is immune to these new > > threats? > > Considering right now www.gnucash.org is a quazi static website that > uses PHP for NEWS and Localization, I'm pretty sure it's immune. The > attack surface of the current www.gnucash.org site is fairly small. I > feel there's more of an attack vector against code/wiki.gnucash.org > specifically because it's running more complicated software (namely > mediawiki). Yes, CMS systems are a complex body of code and hence have a bigger potential for security issues. At the same time they are constantly monitored by a larger number of people as well. The suggestion was made that drupal could be configured to behave similarly to a wiki (while other parts of the same website are still typical CMS pages). That is a very tempting idea to me. It would reduce that attack surface again to one CMS as it could then replace mediawiki, it would be very nice to theme the wiki and more static pages using the same theming engine,... Of course it would still remain a complex piece of code requiring frequent
Re: Website Platform Discussion
Derek: Welcome back. And by the way, thank you for all your work on Gnucash. I benefit greatly from the work of everyone who makes this wonderful product. On 2017-06-22 09:05, Derek Atkins wrote: ...At least I suspect it's "git" that's the barrier to entry and not the fact that it's a raw PHP-based website vs Drupal/et al I have a different opinion. I see the barriers to entry for a new contributor to the website being (in decreasing order of importance): 1. not feeling empowered or capable: "such a big website", "not sure where to start", "afraid I'll screw up" 2. hard to express the change I want to make in raw HTML: "how do I format the table just right?" "What's the right URL for this link to another part of the site?" "How do I keep my change visually consistent with the rest?" 3. difficult to make changes that affect multiple pages on the site: "how do I add another item to the navigation panel?" 4. how to open the website for editing, save changes, commit to production: "how do I use git?" A content management system helps #1 somewhat: the system will prevent you from making a class of stupid mistakes if merely editing content. It's a big help for #2 and #3. It's somewhat of a help for #4, especially for simple changes. The use of git seems to me to be a barrier primarily for #4, and not all that relevant for #1, #2, and #3. -- --Jim DeLaHunt, j...@jdlh.com http://blog.jdlh.com/ (http://jdlh.com/) multilingual websites consultant 355-1027 Davie St, Vancouver BC V6E 4L2, Canada Canada mobile +1-604-376-8953 ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Website Platform Discussion
Hi, Sorry for the delay in responding; I was on vacation.. "David T."writes: > Derek, [snip] > I will note that one of the problems I see with the website/wiki > presence is precisely its static nature. Pages and information seem to > get on the sites and never change or get updated. I don't think that changing the website storage system would change this. Getting the website changed is a simple "git pull request", and even if the underlying site changed to something else, I don't see this process changing. What that says to me is that changing to a CMS wont make it any easier to change the content. >A number of the wiki > pages I was just looking at had references to “new” features for v1.8, > along with links to discussions in the mailing lists ca. 2002. There > were references to resources that have long ago disappeared off the > Internet, as well as discussions about issues that are no longer > relevant to GnuCash in 2017—like discussions about code to create SQL > data from an XML data file, which while perhaps still interesting, are > nonetheless rendered rather moot with the incorporation of the SQL > back end in 2.4. Again, I dont see how changing the underlying infrastructure would help here. To me, the issue is a lack of "maintainers". We would need people who are responsible for the website and wiki content, monitor it, edit it, ensure that it remains current and up to date. I agree that the wiki is probably easier for the majority of users because it doesn't use git. But I'm perfect happy adding more people to the "website" commiter ACL, giving more people the ability to push updates to the website directly. > As for the ongoing maintenance of a cms, I agree that it can be a > pain. However, at least with Drupal, I find the process pretty quick > to manage (in fact, I just installed an update today), and assuming > that the GnuCash site would continue to be a basic site, it would > likely not require many additional modules—thus keeping the update > routines simpler. Moreover, with a bundled cms, you have web > developers who are maintaining awareness of security issues and > pushing out fixes for them. In this day of increased threat vectors > online, can we be sure that the GnuCash site is immune to these new > threats? Considering right now www.gnucash.org is a quazi static website that uses PHP for NEWS and Localization, I'm pretty sure it's immune. The attack surface of the current www.gnucash.org site is fairly small. I feel there's more of an attack vector against code/wiki.gnucash.org specifically because it's running more complicated software (namely mediawiki). > Whether a new platform would encourage the community to maintain a > vibrant web presence or not is of course debatable. but I think it’s a > fair one to have. Fair enough, but I would maintain that changing to a new platform that still gates through GIT would, in essence, not change the community willing to maintain a vibrant web presence. At least I suspect it's "git" that's the barrier to entry and not the fact that it's a raw PHP-based website vs Drupal/et al. In short -- I don't see how adding (or changing to) Drupal would increase the number of people willing and able to keep the website content up to date. > David -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH warl...@mit.eduPGP key available ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel