On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 02:52 pm, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
James Strachan wrote:Noel J. Bergman wrote:One of the reasons for putting dynamically generated artifacts into CVS is that in the event of a recovery situation, CVS is on one server, and the web sites are on another, so recovery can be relatively quick. It is unreasonable to assume that the infrastructure team has the tools, expertise or time to use each different publishing engine.
But the developers on the projects can easily do this for them? It takes about 5 minutes to completely redeploy the website.
You want to coordinate that for dozens of projects/sub-projects in real-time? :-)
I'd have thought a simple file backup of such things would do? If the backup gets trashed, the site would eventually be updated by a quick ping to the PMCs.
In any event, I was just giving a reason. Personally, I'd normally be on
the side of not storing generated artifacts in CVS. Either way, it isn't my
call. :-)
:) Me neither.
OK for now we'll use CVS + tons of diskspace unnecessarily until someone tells us otherwise :)
James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
