That brings up another point, I did ask the infrastructure team about the CMS. The response I got was that it is basically unmaintained as of now. I got the impression that primary author doesn't have time to continue development on it. So I am reluctant to invest a lot of our time migrating content in to that system, only to have that system abandoned.
On Sep 2, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Upayavira wrote: > > > On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:57 -0700, "Michael MacFadden" > <[email protected]> wrote: >> In regards to the current Apache CMS, which we are currently using are: >> >> No one knows how to use it. No it's not that complicated, and yes we can >> learn it. But it's just one more hurdle for new developers. >> The wiki language doesn't seem to have the ability to create tables, or >> other common HTML type things. You have to resort to HTML code. >> I am not certain how flexible the layout engine is. I am envisioning >> wanting to create a developer's guide, which would have a substantially >> differently layout than the main site for example. >> I am not certain how easy it is to embed rich content like video without >> resorting to raw HTML. >> At least in Chrome, there are several bugs in the editor itself. >> >> Granted, I have only really scratched the surface of how the CMS works, >> but as a new user, these were some of my first impressions. They could >> also be a result of me just not being familiar with the tool. > > Fair enough. I haven't really used the Apache CMS, but all I do know is > that endless complaints about CMSes and website tools seemed to dry up > as soon as the CMS turned up. I can only assume that is because it did > *something* right. > > I'd encourage you to ask on infrastructure@ about any features you > need/can't find. See if it can get you closer to what you need. > > Upayavira >
