Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Torsten Curdt wrote: > > As long as everyone has to have a tool locally to build and commit a > > site in order to change *content*, people *will* find the tool annoying. > > A smaller tool maybe less ...but it's *is* an additional step that > > should not be required. Period! > > As has been described by numerous folks already, the idea of having to > locally build and commit the site is not the problem that people are having > with Forrest. Leo's described workflow maintains exactly that behavior. > > I have seen very few people argue that the workflow is wrong. The > prevalent comment is that Forrest is incapable of supporting that model. > Forrest's workflow is, well, I'm not really sure; but I know that it's not > what I want. A "ForrestBot"? A "staging server"?
These are additional tools that can be employed. The base workflow of forrest is the same as others. > In my opinion, none of > those should be involved for what we're trying to accomplish here. Note that i have not yet proposed that Incubator use the Forrestbot. It would need the concensus of this project. -David > So, no issue that has been raised means that a wiki is the answer. > > Far from it. -- justin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
