Re: GNOME Webhackers

[Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>]

<quote who="Paul Cooper">

> > web-devel-2 is the current d.g.o
> > 
> > gnomeweb-wml is the current w.g.o
> 
> does this mean that w.g.o. content is marked up in some subset of wml and
> post processed?

Yes.

> Are people generally happy with this?

Dear god, no! ;) [ Not only is it wml, but it requires version 1.7.4, and
all this other polava. Basically it's a pain in the arse. Now you know why
no one updates it! ]

> Should we base our xslt on this as content markup?

We'll probably have to make half of it well-formed, but other than that,
yeah. The content is pretty cleanly cut off from the rest of it, in nice
little file-sized chunks.

> From what I've seen d.g.o works differently?

d.g.o is not quite as horrendous, but is still pretty icky. (If you read the
cvs-commits-list, you would have seen me grappling with the silly build
system last night.)

It's a bubble-gum-tacked-together collection of makefiles, perl, and voodoo.

> > So, are you talking about d.g.o or w.g.o? I was hoping to have some time
> > alone with d.g.o. ;) [ sound of knives sharpening in the background ]
> 
> Well in the structure proposals so far d.g.o. is a section of w.g.o - I
> mean it will have the same or similar styling no? The whole thing should
> have a cohesive look and feel, including lesser known cvs.gnome.org and
> mail.gnome.org.

They definitely need to look part of a team. :) Not sure about d.g.o being a
section of w.g.o - I'll have to have a thorough look through the links you
posted (I was writing the other email in the mean time).

> > w.g.o will be harder, as it sounds like we'll be tackling the structure
> > differently to the current site. We can still grab a lot from the site's
> > content.
> 
> But here I feel less like I'm messing with other peoples active content
> than the stuff on d.g.o. - if you know what I mean.

Nar, d.g.o is a bit more personal to the hackers. w.g.o just has to
represent the project, so putting things through the Foundation Board,
asking for comment from gnome-hackers list, and getting the release team to
look it over are fairly important. Let's use what's there, and ask what
people think as the pieces come together.

> > In terms of development process and CVS, I'm tempted to say 'build it
> > outside GNOME CVS, then throw it in on top of the current module, having
> > atticed everything else'. I don't think that's the right way of doing it
> > though. We should create a new branch, and do all of our development there.
> 
> CVS please! One of the difficulties I've had is getting up to speed is the 
> spread out nature of the development. I'm no cvs guru but even I find it 
> easier to cvs update than check 3-4 websites for changes, etc.

Most definitely. It's just this initial hurdle of where we start, how we
deal with the existing sources etc.

> At least if a couple of people have cvs ci permission I can send patches
> to the list.  Also it is another place to put the structure proposals,
> todo list, changelog, etc. Plus we might get a mention in the cvs section
> of the gnome summary ;O

Please send patches, etc. to the list. Not sure who else has write access
here, but I can always check stuff in, and sponsor people for access when
their patches become a burden. ;)

- Jeff

-- 
     "Funny, I have no trouble distinguishing my mobile phone from the      
       others because it's in my _own fucking pocket_!" - Mobile Rage