> Aha, now I see much more clearly. I had thought about that, but had pushed
> it to the back of my brain as a problem that could be solved when time came
> to go live. I have a server myself, and though I probably couldn't get
> approval to open it to others I can do pretty much what I want as long as
> I'm the one doing it (or if others modify anything themselves, it's through
> cvs or ftp, just no shell). I guess I'm not the only one to be able to
> provide such facilities so I thought of all us people some solution would
> be possible. After all, mod_perl attracts many people that have their own
> servers (as opposed to just having an account), and perl.apache.org could
> probably point to another server.
>
> But if we can't, then we might be indeed in trouble and I was wrong putting
> it in the back of my mind. What do you think ?
I think there are 2 issues here - 1st is site's look and feel, which might
be pretty static - so no problem here. 2nd is all the dynamic part, which
consists of 2 parts - us having an ability to admin the information
add/delete and user to search and page thru it - something I don't see how
can be done taken the nature of apache.org (as I've explained in my
previous email)
> >For me as of this moment perl.apache.org is a gopher site (remember that
> >name?), with links for downloading docs and mod_perl. And that's not far
> >from truth. If we succeed to revive perl.apache.org to make it a dynamic
> >site, I don't see any reason to have all the functionality we wanted to
> >add to SourceGarden there. Our main goal is different - a greenhouse for
> >mod_perl sw.
>
> I agree. Well, depending on the content if we can't have enough access at
> perl.apache.org there is still the solution to generate it statically and
> commit it to cvs automatically. And what can't fit into that scheme would
> go to sourcegarden, which is not a bad solution at all, I just find that it
> would be a pity to have such technical constraints on the way
> functionality/content is distributed between the sister-sites. Ideally we
> wouldn't have to take anything else than the actual content into account.
>
> I might look into the possibility of adding a few ssh accounts to our
> server if I can get approval on this.
But you are talking about yet another server... I don't get it?
I think all the admin dynamic part can be generated/maintaned on
sourcegarden, and perl.apache.org would be just a static cvs dump of all
the information that's static. Whenever user will want to search or page
thru dynamic info (jobs, modules, ISPs, changes file...) she will have to
go to another site (sourcegarden), unless you succeed to change the
situation... We can cooperate on having the same look and feel of course,
to make the browsing experience much better and transparent for a
surfer...
_______________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.singlesheaven.com/stas
Perl,CGI,Apache,Linux,Web,Java,PC at www.singlesheaven.com/stas/TULARC
www.apache.org & www.perl.com == www.modperl.com || perl.apache.org
single o-> + single o-+ = singlesheaven http://www.singlesheaven.com
