On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Alexandro Colorado <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/31/12, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Alexandro Colorado <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 10/31/12, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Alexandro Colorado <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 10/31/12, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/l10n-new/ >>>>> >>>>> why do we have a different directory, wouldnt it be just better to have >>>>> >>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/l10n/new.html >>>>> >>>>> Doesnt make sense to have two Localization projects/folders. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Long term, it does not. For review it is perfectly fine. Once we've >>>> debugged it and are agreed on the new site, then of course we replace >>>> the old directory with this one. >>> >>> I am sorry, this doesn't make sense, sounds like the plan of the plan. >>> I would go on commiting the data and if there are changes or >>> rollbacks, just update the pages/sites. That's the whole point of >>> using a version control system/wiki IMO. AFAIK just unlinking will >> >> >> Obviously I disagree. The fact that we have version control does not >> mean we can just overwrite stuff on a production server with >> unreviewed changes. > > Who exactly is going to review those changes, the reviewers or authors > are long gone from the project. Right now mantaining that content is > doing more harm than just having incomplete fresh content. >
OK. It sounds like you are missing the context here. Jan emailed me these updated files so I could check them in. Anyone who wishes to review them can do so. I certainly am. There are some issues on the page currently. When these are taken care of, then of course we'll put them in the normal directly. But right now they are suffering some serious issues with the site template. I'd rather take care of that now rather than debate the theory of version control. OK? -Rob > >> >>> have a non-destructive effect to the past content if we are trying to >>> preserve things live, otherwise it will just go on the revision >>> history. >>> >>> I looked at the l10n-new and not a lot of data is in it, I would just >>> merge it back with l10n and comment whatever seems 'outdated'. >>> >>>> >>>> -Rob >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is based on a contribution from Jan. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can look at the source is Subversion: >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/l10n-new/ >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like Jan is trying some clever work customizing the website >>>>>> template and server-side includes. But it looks like it is >>>>>> conflicting with (or is being applied in duplicate to) the site-wide >>>>>> template. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave might have some ideas here. But in general I think we want to >>>>>> avoid having duplicate copies of site-wide items, like Google >>>>>> Analytics declarations. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Rob >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Alexandro Colorado >>>>> PPMC Apache OpenOffice >>>>> http://es.openoffice.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Alexandro Colorado >>> PPMC Apache OpenOffice >>> http://es.openoffice.org >> > > > -- > Alexandro Colorado > PPMC Apache OpenOffice > http://es.openoffice.org
