[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [E-devel] Continuing the website saga
I don't know which xsm version e.org runs, nor if the slowness is
because of the machine. But as i use xsm for the get-e.org maintaince i
can say that is has been speeded up a lot since my first contact one year ago.
30 minutes for a simple news post is really not acceptable - but on
get-e.org it is much more faster. Adding a news there takes about 2-3
minutes - sometimes longer - but this has to do with the load of the
machine as it is used for different sites. After you have added a news,
edit and save is much faster! Also it's only the news page which takes a
bit time on saving when adding new entries, the other templates are much faster.
Maybe it is because the news page has 338 entries
Brian 'morlenxus' Miculcy
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 09:23:16PM -0400, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 September 2006, at 16:59:10 (-0700),
> Ben Rockwood wrote:
> > 1) Since moving to XSM updates have almost complete stopped. The
> > changes in the last 2 years are all trivial. (Minus the redesign work.)
> I'm trying to forget the past transgressions that may have occurred
> and focus on the future. You and I have talked about this in person
> as well as on IRC, so you know how I felt originally about everything
> that happened.
> But it's done, and it's over. Andy has made a solid commitment to not
> only listen to constructive feedback on XSM, but to really drive it in
> the direction we need it to go to fill the current gaps in our
> I've come to realize that continuing to beat the same old drum as
> before is just as political and counterproductive as some of what
> inspired my frustration in the first place. The band has left the
> field; it's time to stop banging the snare.
> > 2) XSM is, speaking only for myself, slow and non-intuitive to work
> > with. Simple news updates take 30 minutes or more due to rebuilds.
> You're 100% right that it's not instantly intuitive. That's one of my
> gripes too. XSM seems to have a very powerful content assembly
> paradigm but lacks an adequate way of presenting this power to the
> uninitiated. This is an issue that must be addressed, and I think it
> will be.
> Speed is also a common complaint which is about to be rectified. Andy
> assured us that it's a heckuva lot faster on a local box, and I have
> no reason to doubt his word. Besides, when the new box is ready, the
> facts will speak for themselves.
> > 3) No one has stepped up to the plate to work within the current
> > framework, and honestly I haven't heard anyone say they like it or
> > are willing to maintain it in XSM.
> I know devilhorns is willing, morlenxus seemed open to it with some
> feature requests added on, and I believe the other get-e.org folks
> have already been using it for quite some time.
> Granted, none of them have taken care of e.org like you did. You're
> still a very valuable asset to the team. But we can't keep swimming
> around in the same pool forever; the argument has to end, and we must
> press onward.
> > 4) Final decisions on what happens with E.org is Raster's call. I
> > haven't just yanked down XSM and done things "my way" because its
> > not my call, its ultimately his. I brought up discussion about
> > switching off of XSM over a year ago and the discussion fizzled out
> > on the "leave it alone" note, I didn't rock the boat.
> Understood. But I also understand this: E.org is better off with you
> than without you. By far. But for better or worse, we're using XSM
> right now. And while I greatly value your past contributions, more
> willingness to cooperate is going to be necessary going forward.
> > 5) I don't care WHAT we use. Flat HTML is fast and easy and we'd
> > have an updated site in less than a day even with the site on SF.
> > So long as the choice is easier and faster to work with I really am
> > not going to press for any particular solution.
> Then are you willing to at least give XSM another try once it's moved
> to our new server? What if Andy gave a quicky XSM tutorial on the
> mailing list? Would that help the UI issue at all?
> > Bottom line, the site gets a noteworthy amount of traffic on a daily
> > basis. No one is updating or maintaining the site. This wasn't the
> > case prior to XSM, I'm not saying it was perfect but work was at
> > least happening. Tell me what you want to move to and I'll do it.
> > The point is here that I'm willing and able to do the work. Tell me
> > what you want and that no one will freak out when I do it and off we
> > go.
> This seems a lot more cooperative than before. :) Are you willing to
> give XSM another shot if that's how we decide to do it?
> > ... besides, Michael, you know me. I don't tend to lone-gun things
> > or dictate. I'm here to help, others will help, I believe, if we
> > have a better framework, lets just get the site working reasonably
> > again. I've had "Fix E.org" on my TODO list for over 2 years!!!
> > I'd like to finally get on with things.
> Here's another idea. If you're not wanting to work with XSM, perhaps
> you could create/edit pages in raw HTML and have someone else enter
> them into XSM for you. Would that work?
> > PS: I think I miss mails like this from you, mej, the most. You da man
> > Michael. ;)
> I try. :-)
> Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <email@example.com>
> n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
> "If the President knowingly lies to the American people, he should
> immediately resign." -- Bill Clinton in 1974
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
> enlightenment-devel mailing list