[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [E-devel] website maintainers needed




On Sep 11, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Michael Jennings wrote:

On Monday, 11 September 2006, at 11:04:13 (-0700),
Blake Barnett wrote:

I don't think it's even worth discussing going back to the old
CVS/HTML setup.  The point is to encourage _casual_ contribution,
not to make it hard, which it seems like that's all we've done so
far.

CVS has several advantages:
 - Account management is only in one spot (CVS write access)

And it requires giving everyone who wants to add a simple little news item access to everything in CVS (should normally be a problem... but.)

 - Ben R. will use it (who singlehandedly did more site updates in the
   average month than XSM has seen in its entire lifespan on E.org)

Ben is quite fond of Ruby and Rails. Here's a quote from his blog: "But the appeal of Ruby is just unresistable and I admit I'm headed in that direction more and more all the time."

 - Still serves static pages

Ruby can serve static pages, for that matter, what web server can't?

 - Site could auto-update periodically from CVS

So could a Rails site.

 - Developers are comfortable with the process

Rephorm made his site in Rails, so did Atmos. Tilman is quite comfortable with it. Add to that, Eugen, me, and I'm sure quite a few others...

 - No more CMS wars (!!)

Rails is not a CMS.

 - Gobs and gobs of tools exist to work with CVS in any number of ways

For building a website?!?!

 - Translates easily to any SCM system
 - Revision control for web content with the same features as code!

This is silly. Content revision control is quite easy to do. See: acts_as_revisioned heh


And let's face it:  Getting write access to CVS is easier now than
it's EVER been.  Assuming the person granting you access doesn't screw
up, of course...  :-)

It's silly to get CVS access to do web updates.  Welcome to 2006.

-Blake