On 03/01/13 04:34, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> I'm a bit surprised that this wasn't already documented... also, perhaps
> add a README (in publish/ or its parent) pointing to this new doc?
>
Done.
<snip>
>> + <li>Check your Apache server includes <tt>mod_include.so</tt></li>
>> +
>
> Is this for httpd 2.2, 2.4, or both?
>
Tested for 2.2 and 2.4. The text now mentions this.
<snip>
>> + <li>Enable Server Side Includes for the relevant DocumentRoot. The
>> + relevant Apache directive is:
>> + <pre> Options +Include
>
> What about:
>
> AddOutputFilter INCLUDES .html
>
Do we actually need this? I've not put it in since I was only
documenting the steps I used.
>> + </pre></li>
>> +
>> + <li>Turn on SSI parsing for html files for the relevant DocumentRoot.
>> + The relevant Apache directive is:
>> + <pre> XBitHack on
>
> I think it would be more correct to enable .htaccess files (and link to
> ours while you're at it). The live webservers don't have XBitHack
> enabled in httpd.conf, only in .htaccess .
>
Thank you. Text changed to do this.
>> + </pre></li>
>> +
>> + <li>Turn on the execute bit for the relevant files. This should be
>> + the case in the working copy, but is worth checking. For this guide,
>> + the command would be:
>> + <pre>
>> + chmod 775 /var/www2/site/publish/community-guide/*
>
> chmod -R community-guide/
>
> to catch dotfiles and subdirs too.
>
Thank you -- done.
>
> wwww2 ?
>
I chose that as the directory for the first cut. It has been changed to
"/home/user/projects/svn/site" in this cut.
>> + ScriptAlias /cgi-bin/ /usr/lib/cgi-bin/
>
> Why? Our site doesn't use CGI.
>
Removed.
>> +<p>We require that all patches for the web site have been validated in
>> + prior to submission.</p>
>> +
>
> This could be discouraging to contributors. Can we relax this to say
> "Don't have obvious syntax errors [I mean mismatched tags], please
> validate if you can"?
>
> Seriously, all of the stuff you're documenting is advanced. We don't
> want people who want to just fix a typo think they need to install httpd
> for that. (That happens to be a low bar for most devs, since we already
> have local httpd installations for 'make davautocheck'.)
>
I've reworded this section to reflect this.
>> +<p>For a full discussion of the Subversion patch requirements, please
>> + follow the project
>> + general patch guidelines
>
> Should this use GUIDE_GENERAL_PAGE and GUIDE_CONVENTIONS_PAGE ?
>
Done.
I've included all your points due to the delay in my responding.
Received on 2013-01-20 01:16:13 CET