Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25/11/2003 08:39:42 PM:
> > Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Aaron Mulder wrote: > > > >> The truth is, if the whole thing is generated from source files in > >>CVS, so long as the actual source code is backed up, the web site CAN be > >>recovered in a relatively painless fashion -- just restore the CVS backup > >>and build the site. Am I missing something? > > > > Others have made the point about the infrastructure team not wanting to > > have to learn N groups' build systems in case we need to restore from CVS. > > I wanted to add that even if you're storing 190 MB of generated content, > > the actual amount of generated content that *changes* each time you do a > > rebuild should be small, a proportion of the scale of other code changes > > that happened or other documentation changes in the corresponding amounts > > of time. If every generated page ends up being different from the last > > time the build was run for something spurious like adding a timestamp, > > perhaps that could be re-examined. > > AFAIK the main issue is about the Javadocs, sourcedocs, etc. IMHO these > artifacts can also be removed from the CVS stuff, as having them > restored in case of an accident is not really necessary. What's the point of only restoring part of the web site? > It would be better if these could be generated dynamically though, as > checking in 190MB of stuff is not that nice in any case. Amen! -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
