On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 11:10:13AM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Leo Simons wrote: > > > I think what it comes down to is what we want here for the > > incubator is a "stable", or preferably "mature" tool, and > > forrest really is currently too much of a moving target > > That can be addressed, in part, by packaging Forrest in our site build > structure, so that when you checkout the Incubator site, you get everything > you need to build it. We do that with JAMES; everything you need comes with > the checkout, including the specific versions of ant, phoenix, DBCP, etc., > that we use. All in that one tree. And when you're done, if you delete the > tree, there are no droppings left elsewhere.
How would even having a local copy of the JARs prevent the problem that Forrest won't actually generate the site? That was the issue Geir had. As far as I can tell, Forrest will only work with a "ForrestBot" and a "staging server" - it doesn't support a model where a local build is sufficient to regenerate the site. (Ross said that he is proposing that Forrest be able to do that in the future; but they don't do it now.) Don't get me wrong; having everything included in incubator/site *is* a requirement. The only thing a user should bring to the table is a JVM. As demonstrated elsewhere, Anakia works exactly like that. > > I'm not going to be "happy" until I have a site generation tool I can > > basically "forget about". > > That's a fair, but potentially orthogonal issue. It's central to the whole discussion. If I have to spend any time thinking about Forrest, it means that I'm not thinking about the content. -- justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
