Thorsten Scherler wrote: > Gav.... escribi??: > > > From: Thorsten Scherler > > > Gav.... escribi??: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > >... do we need to deploy the whole site every time a small change like > > > this > > > > Is made, or will it happen eventually anyway? > > > > > > No, only someone is building and deploying the site. > > > > Ok, but it does not matter that any changes someone does make are not > > Deployed before someone else makes changes, as long as the changed files > > Are committed in site-author? > > Not sure whether I understood correctly. ;) Assuming you have committed > your changes to site-author. > > a) if I do an update (what we always have to) before I deploy my > changes, then yes your changes will be deployed as well. > b) if I forget to update (what can happen), then no I will not deploy > your changes. > > ...I have seen it in different projects that people commit to the source > of the documentation and do not deploy to "site". The problem is that in > some projects only one or two actually ever have done a commit to site > but projects should not depend on one or two.
Gav, it is quite okay to make the changes to the sources, be satisfied locally that all is okay, then commit the source changes. Someone else can deploy the site later. This approach also allows people time to be happy with the changes before they are published. Don't get too concerned about "approval" ... even if you published them immediately then another committer can always change and re-publish if there is an issue. I have been trying to publish the site once per week. This keeps the changes.html up-to-date and also collects any source changes that committers have done during the week. Of course it is far better that others do this role too. -David
