On 10/31/12, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Got it. > > -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 merge it back with l10n and comment whatever seems 'outdated'.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 > -- Alexandro Colorado PPMC Apache OpenOffice http://es.openoffice.org
