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

Re: Plone to DocBook solution



Jonathan Steffan wrote:
> 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
> with

Hmm... thunderbird--

This already being the case:

Changes to the way the Makefiles work would require changes in the logic
of the buildd, albeit only a few functions.


> 
>>  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 have more in house python skills then any other; IMHO.

> 
>>  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
> daMaestro
> 
> 


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