> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name]
> Sent: woensdag 4 oktober 2017 02:05
> To: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Workflow for editing the subversion website
> Johan Corveleyn wrote on Tue, 03 Oct 2017 23:32 +0200:
> > The recent work on our quick-start.html page by Pavel Lyalyakin
> > prompted some thinking about how to better organize our site editing.
> > Pavel asked about lightweight branching and Daniel suggested to copy
> > site/publish to site/staging and having it served as
> > http://subversion.staging.apache.org/ to facilitate previewing .
> Small technical note: *.staging.apache.org is what the CMS uses, also it will
> cause SSL errors since the *.apache.org certificate won't match that
> hostname. (Compare svn-eu.apache.org/svn.eu.apache.org: asterisk in the
> cert doesn't match dot in the URL's hostname) We can get around both
> problems by having the staging preview site live on, say, https://subversion-
> staging.apache.org/ (or even on svn-qavm).
> > Small changes and corrections can go directly to the live site. Maybe
> > we'll need some exceptions for things like news, release notes and
> > security pages, which are usually updated as part of releases and get
> > a lot of eyes already.
> > Thoughts?
> I'd like to understand the topology / flow of changes: what ensures that
> changes made directly to publish are not reverted by a subsequent
> promotion of staging?
> FWIW, in the Apache CMS, a "publish" operation uses 'svnmucc rm publish
> cp N staging publish', so it's an O(1) operation, but it literally overwrites any
> changes that may have been made directly to publish/. (I'm glossing over a
> detail but that's the gist)
I think we should just use svn merge, to avoid these problems? No CMS here.
Received on 2017-10-04 11:07:21 CEST