Noel wrote: > As far as I know, all sites are supposed to be in CVS, and checked out into > the file system. Amongst the reasons for this are to ensure that > infrastructure can recover them rapidly in the event of a problem. This > includes sites generated by Forrest or Maven.
Martin Cooper wrote: > This makes a great deal of sense. Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware, none > of the Maven generated sites are checked in. That's probably because Maven > does so much (e.g. site:deploy) that it doesn't occur to people (including > myself) to take the extra step and check in the generated site. > > I'm not aware of an actual policy that requires this, but it wouldn't be a > bad idea. Perhaps I'll bring that up on [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the meantime, > it would be a good policy for us to introduce to Commons, at least, while > we're in the process of sorting out our own web site infrastructure. Dion Gillard asked: > Is this a definite rule? > Is there somewhere it's mandated? > I'm asking as I don't remember it being required. It is part of the "official" documentation maintained in the Apache site module by the infrastructure team: - Every project also has a "proj-www" module that corresponds to the public website specific to that project. This module appears when one goes to the web site "http://proj.apache.org";. ref: http://www.apache.org/dev/svc-name-template.html - All CVS modules are in the form "$project[-$codebase]", where $codebase is an optional extension for subclassing the project into a couple separate parts. Decide which CVS modules you want to create. There should be at least one for the web site, "$project-site". Create /www/$project.apache.org directory, chmod g+w, chgrp'd to $project. Do a "cvs checkout $project-site" into that directory ref: http://www.apache.org/dev/project-creation.html - The websites are served from directories under /www on daedalus. But you usually do not edit any content in those directories. Each website is an anonymous CVS checkout of a repository on icarus. ref: http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#web That last one goes into more detail. Obviously, the documentation needs a bit of tidying, but the concept is still the same. I am cc'ing infrastructure@, so if there is any change from this infrastructure policy, the team can let everyone know. Otherwise, I think that this remains policy. John Keys asked: > Is it not enough to have the source of the site in CVS? For example, > the xdocs (and associated artifacts) for a maven generated site. Is > there an added benefit to having the generated HTML in CVS also? In the event of some sort of failure, e.g., an accidental deletion or some other problem, the infrastructure team cannot be assumed to have access to the tools, nor knowledge to use them. Plus it would take much longer to restore by re-building than by doing an update from CVS. There is also an oversight issue. If there were some sort of defacement (there was a perceived one last year), it can be checked against CVS records (turned out that it was not a hack, just an ill-advised comment that a Commiter had checked in). And those CVS records can be checked against replicated copies. Those are just a few things that occur to me off-hand. I am sure that those who developed the policy in the first place have even more reasons, and experiences behind them. Mark R. Diggory wrote: > I'm of the opinion that a proper backup system is the appropriate > solution here, this is not an ideal usage of cvs and is just > going to "bloat" the cvs contents. Those are issues for the infrastructure team, which issued the policy documented above, to deal with. As for the latter, apparently it has not been considered an issue to date. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
