Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Dec 29, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Dec 27, 2005, at 9:14 PM, David Crossley wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
since I'm rather new to this, I don't have a deep understanding
of the
problems you're trying to solve.
None is needed, the problem is very simple.
The problems are not simple, or they would have been solved
years ago. Follow the site-dev discussions from mid-2004.
It seems that the publishing step is the hardest. No matter
what the tool, that step trips people up. It seems that
committers just will not do it. It could perhaps be automated,
however the requirement to check the generated docs into
svn prevents that (need a committer's svn credentials).\
I don't understand. Publshing to me should be "svn commit" after I
look at the site with my local browser as a QA step. And yes,
committers should be the only ones able to do it.
That is exactly what it is, when using ForrestBot (in fact you don't
even have to type "svn commit" since the tool does it for you). The
problem is that it requries SVN passwords or user interaction and so
can't be part of an automated tool.
What's the "ForrestBot"? I just want to
The forrestbot is a tool runs Forrest for you it can be run from the
command line, via a cron job or via a servlet (i.e. no need to install
locally). It will do useful things like send emails on success/failure
(useful for periodic staging builds).
a) edit
b) render
c) examine. if not right, GOTO a)
d) commit
e) deploy
a,c are entirely my choice of tool, so it's easy.
d,e use one standard common tool. it's easy.
b needs to be simple and easy
The ForrestBot does b, d and e of your, i.e. the three steps that you
don't list as "entirely my choice of tool". Although e) can not be done
on ASF harware until there is a way such a tool can push the content to
the live servers (same problem for all tools). Of course, it can do the
preparation work, such as put it in a relevant SVN server for periodic
pull deployment to the servers.
The advantage of the forrestbot is that if you have users who edit docs
but do not do b through e, then a cron job will reularly run the build
and report any problems via email. This also means there is a regularly
built staging area for people to independantly do c) without the need to
do b).
Couple this with other validation tools that can be set to run on the
staging area, e.g. link checkers, accessibility checkers erc. and you
have a level of automated validation of your site (we have not yet
integrated such tools in the ForrestBot).
It's here, it works now and it is in use in production environments.
However, it is not a simple lightweight tool for local use, it still
suffers from the "Forrest is too much for our simple site needs" issue.
As you will see if you are a site-dev subscriber, I'm not objecting to
Leo doing this work, my only concen is the misinformation that is in
this thread conerning Forrest.
Ross
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
