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

Re: Plone to DocBook solution

Hash: SHA1

Karsten Wade wrote:
> ----- "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.

Actually, the changes I would like to make will not have anything to do
with plone. Plone will just be able to trigger actions, in the same way
a human would.

  Thereby making a duplicate, parallel system to understand and maintain.

Well, this is already the case. There is static logic to find the
innermost Makefile for the buildd (read: plone action) to actually work

>  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.

No, I'd like to see a pure python based solution replace the Makefiles.

>  We already are resource challenged taking care of just one toolchain.

Yes. I know. My thoughts on getting rid of the Makefiles has been from
observing comments about how much of a PITA they are to work with.

> 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?

I was proposing replacing the Makefiles.

Jonathan Steffan

Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


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