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

Re: Plone to DocBook solution

----- "Jonathan Steffan" <jon fedoraunity org> wrote:
> It's still in the works. I've had some setbacks moving from Plone
> 2.5.3
> to Plone 3 (as a Plone developer). I'll try my best to put together
> something for beta testing but I'd really like to look at some other
> unrelated changes Ive been playing with (mainly getting rid of the
> Makefiles). I'll try to put together an email with a score of
> suggestions to test the waters for where we could go with this. Right
> now the buildd (the daemon that interacts between plone and cvs) uses
> the existing Makefiles but requires them to be error free and also
> requires the innermost Makefile to be valid for building the
> document.
> It's very fragile to say the least. I'm working out a pure python
> based
> build system that will replace the Makefiles with simple/nice config
> files for each module, among other things. I'll try to send this email
> soon.

Recommend that you send that email *before* you do any coding.  I'm not sure what is fragile to Plone about the Makefiles, but it sounds like you are suggesting to duplicate their actions entirely within Plone.  Thereby making a duplicate, parallel system to understand and maintain.  Unless you plan on personally porting changes from the Makefile into this new system $FOREVER ... it doesn't seem like a plan that can scale.  We already are resource challenged taking care of just one toolchain.

If the Makefiles in CVS have errors or are invalid, that is a larger problem than just Plone.  Wouldn't the better solution be to fix the central Makefiles?

- Karsten
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41

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