On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 13:07 +1000, David Crossley wrote: > Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > > Does that need a publication? > > > > Hmm, to be bloody honest with you, my intend is to implement Ross idea > > of getting forrest devs started with lenya. I personally see too much > > work and effort that is duplicated (done by both projects) and this as > > opportunity to get both projects in sync to focus on their core > > competence. For example our plugins and lenya's modules *are* the same > > thing (better said addressing the same issue). This is just one example > > where we (speaking for both project) try to reinvent the wheel that > > cocoon made round for us, instead of contributing the enhancement of the > > wheel back to cocoon. ;-) > > That paragraph does not sound like a joke, but the smiley > at the end indicates so. Anyway, i am treating it as serious. > > I suggest that we keep developing our plugins here > at Forrest, and that Lenya keep on with their modules. > > When Cocoon has real blocks happening then we will > all be able to interoperate better. There is no point > contributing back to Cocoon at this stage. Nor do i see > reasons for Lenya and Forrest to merge capabilities yet. > The design of plugins/blocks will change. > Please, I am quite tiered that lately many people started to jump on everything that somebody writes. If you do, make sure that it is not your *own* interpretation rather then the actual written thought! Who said or recommended that we should not develop plugins anymore or lenya their modules? I said to sync the effort! > We are not reinventing Cocoon's wheel. that is your personal opinion. I have my own. > Forrest built > upon that with the pass-through sitemaps and donated > that part back. More major changes need to wait for > real blocks. > > > Now BT (back to topic), yes we need our own publication, for now only to > > clean up the default pub. The default pub is like our "forrest seed" > > with lots of examples. What we need is something like "forrest > > seed-basic". A cleanup of all the examples to get started. Then we can > > go enhance it and extend it for our needs. The "flat directory > > structure" we will need to define and yes, that is for now just a > > playground for us and not "yet our Forrest documentation editing > > environment". > > Okay now i understand that we do need a very basic > "publication". You wondered in another thread whether > we needed one. I was trying to help make that decision. > Actually i am surprised that Lenya does not already have > a very basic publication that we can just use. > It is called default pub, like i mentioned. We should use it instead. > > > > How to we want to handle the user management? > > > > > > > > Should I add all forrest committers as reviewer and the devs/user as > > > > editor. Or should I create one default editor and user? We need to make > > > > sure that nobody besides us can edit. > > > > > > Can you explain a bit more about the difference between > > > those options? > > > > We can add every single committer (to get started) to the ac. That let > > you log in as e.g. thorsten with pass XxXxX or david with pass YyYyYyY. > > That allow to track down specific changes by users/editors. I would > > setup the accounts on demand and notify every single committer about > > their password that I have choosen or alternatively the committer can > > send me the pass and I set it up. > > > > The alternative is to create a generic user/editor that you and me use > > with the same pass. Like we have e.g. in the lenya zone. That is quicker > > to setup and could be easily extended in future. The problem is when it > > comes to users/devs. I fully trust all the PMC committers to not abuse > > their given rights, but my mother always told me to be careful about > > strangers (no offense indented). ;-) > > I reckon that we should go with the individual accounts > so that we know who made changes, and add new accounts > on demand. Committers can review and put changes into > production, users/devs can edit. Committers use their > ASF login IDs and users/devs choose their own name. > Since it is an experiment like you said I would be for variant 1 (create one editor/reviewer). > > Roadmap: > > > > - create forrest lenya-based Forrest Tuesday pub. > > > > Do we agree on that? I strongly recommend it to set it up in our svn. > > I don't see why it needs to be called > "Forrest Tuesday publication". This whitebaord > should be used at any time. I did not give it a name. > > If Lenya don't have a basic publication, then we > can develop it in our SVN and contribute it back. > We should use the default pub till the forrest community wants their own publication. > > > > - create user > > > > see the above mentioned alternatives. > > > > > > - create content > > > > on the 6th of September. > > For the task at hand, yes. The main reason is to > have a whiteboard to assist us with the XHTML move. > > The secondary reason is to have a Lenya instance > so that later we can enhance our Lenya input plugin. > I don't want to see this first ForrestTuesday turn > into a Lenya-Forrest integration exercise. This is > a good time to kick-start, but we have other priorities. > Then we should use the cocoon or lenya wiki. I do not have time for creating pubs for fun. If it should not become a basis for integration then I do not see the point in spending my spare time for it. BTW I want to announce that I will lay lower with forrest for a while. There are too many things in my real life happening right now that I need to leverage my time better. I will still be subscribed but only doing work when I can (mostly that will be view related). salu2 > -David > > > > > - use the brand new lenya plugin to get the content into our docu > > > > open ended. > > > > salu2 > > > > thorsten > > > > "Together we stand, divided we fall!" > > Hey you (Pink Floyd) -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd)
