Re: [Freecol-developers] Fwd: FreeCol Website

2015-05-06 Thread Michael T. Pope
On Tue, 5 May 2015 22:04:57 -0500
Caleb Williams  wrote:
> I don't mind the fact that it is in a repository somewhere, just not in the
> same one as the FreeCol Source code. It just seems to be needless clouding
> things.

That ship has sailed.  The website contains the auto-generated javadoc.
The javadoc is generated from our git tree.  I even have a script for
uploading it already.  Having a copy of the website already present
potentially (when I have written those scripts) makes the release process
simpler as I can edit the release-relevant pages in my local git instance
and upload them and the javadoc in one hit.

Meanwhile, MR#35 is in, however this is inefficient.  Would you like
commit privilege?

Cheers,
Mike Pope


pgp2nfEt8WCmH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud 
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y___
Freecol-developers mailing list
Freecol-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freecol-developers


[Freecol-developers] Fwd: FreeCol Website

2015-05-05 Thread Caleb Williams
Accidentally replied only privately

Since then, I made a series of source code changes. Not really a huge deal
as it shouldn't effect the look of the site, just the code.

> I have mixed feelings about putting everything up on the repository,
>
> I am surprised.  I think we need to store it *somewhere*, if only to avoid
> losing it completely next time the web site is cracked.

I don't mind the fact that it is in a repository somewhere, just not in the
same one as the FreeCol Source code. It just seems to be needless clouding
things.


> > The only thing I don't like is having to deal with SF's Git
> implementation.
>
> Fair enough.  I am not troubled by it as I only use git at the command
> line.  Is that your only reservation?
>

For this iteration of a simple non-dynamic web site that allows for
semi-easy updating, yes.


> > I don't have any real issue with the website being included with the
> > release (not that too many are offline these days, but you could view
> > everything offline if needed). We will need to weed out PHP file then
> > though as the end user's computer will not be able to process them unless
> > they already have a PHP install running to parse the pages (something we
> > definitely don't want to depend on).
>
> The initial step is to cull the site down to the core static pages.  PHP
> is not required there.
>

Exactly. The first step will be to rename some files.

> Conversely, if we want eventual dynamic content delivered via PHP
>
> Let us decide that when the time comes.  The opinion of the people who do
> the work will carry the most weight.
>

As well it should.



-- 
*Caleb R. Williams*
--
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud 
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y___
Freecol-developers mailing list
Freecol-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freecol-developers