More Site Cleanup

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

More Site Cleanup

Robert Bray-2
I made a pass through the new FDO site today and cleaned up a bunch of
stuff leftover from the migration. For one I removed all of the <head>,
<body>, etc tags that are not required in Drupal. I also removed the
redundant titles from each page and am pretty sure all the links work now.

If you see anything odd, please let me know.

Thanks,
Bob
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: More Site Cleanup

Haris Kurtagic
Hi Bob,
 
I couldn't find a link to fdooracle subproject.
On previous site the link was on first page.
 
What would be the way to add it and also for other things like Fdo2Fdo tool ?
 
Haris

________________________________

From: [hidden email] on behalf of Robert Bray
Sent: Sun 1/14/2007 9:33 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [fdo-internals] More Site Cleanup



I made a pass through the new FDO site today and cleaned up a bunch of
stuff leftover from the migration. For one I removed all of the <head>,
<body>, etc tags that are not required in Drupal. I also removed the
redundant titles from each page and am pretty sure all the links work now.

If you see anything odd, please let me know.

Thanks,
Bob
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals



_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

winmail.dat (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Site Cleanup

Robert Bray-2
Haris,

I restored the lost Oracle provider page and added the Oracle provider to the table graphic on the home page. For Fdo2Fdo I was thinking of adding a "Tools" link under "Essentials". Does that make sense to everyone?

Also I am pondering the general navigation of the site. I am all ears if anyone has recommendations for improving it.

Thanks,
Bob

Haris Kurtagic wrote:
Hi Bob,
 
I couldn't find a link to fdooracle subproject.
On previous site the link was on first page.
 
What would be the way to add it and also for other things like Fdo2Fdo tool ?
 
Haris

________________________________

From: [hidden email] on behalf of Robert Bray
Sent: Sun 1/14/2007 9:33 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [fdo-internals] More Site Cleanup



I made a pass through the new FDO site today and cleaned up a bunch of
stuff leftover from the migration. For one I removed all of the <head>,
<body>, etc tags that are not required in Drupal. I also removed the
redundant titles from each page and am pretty sure all the links work now.

If you see anything odd, please let me know.

Thanks,
Bob
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals


  

_______________________________________________ fdo-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Site Cleanup

Mateusz Loskot
Robert Bray wrote:
> Haris,
>
> I restored the lost Oracle provider page and added the Oracle provider
> to the table graphic on the home page. For Fdo2Fdo I was thinking of
> adding a "Tools" link under "Essentials". Does that make sense to everyone?

I like this idea.

By the way, would it be possible to have some room in the FDO SVN for
such tools, non-provider codes?

In example, while I'm working on PostGIS provider, I'm developing some
command line tools - in concept, similar to OGR utilities (ogrinfo,
ogr2ogr).
After I have PostGIS provider ready, I'd like to continue development of
my tools and make them user friendly.
So, it would be great to host such tools near the FDO code.

> Also I am pondering the general navigation of the site. I am all ears if
> anyone has recommendations for improving it.

Yes, I'd have some loose comments. Here is my proposal of structure of
main links (these in the left column):

- About
-- Features
-- Providers Overview
-- Governance
-- License
-- History
-- FDO users

- Documentation
-- Requirements
-- Getting Started
-- FAQ
-- Wiki (-> Trac)

- Community
-- Mailing lists

- Development
-- Road Map
-- Trac
-- SVN


Cheers
--
Mateusz Loskot
http://mateusz.loskot.net
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Site Cleanup

Robert Bray-2
Mateusz,

Good suggestion. For the tools maybe we can create an fdotools subversion instance unless someone out there has a better idea.

In general I like your navigation approach. Where I am getting caught up is our multiple SVN instance thing. Right now we have fdo, fdocore, fdosdf, etc. Many of our pages have a provider list on them and each time we add a provider we have to touch a bunch of different pages. An alternative approach is to break the site down by provider. That is have a main page for FDO, which links to sub-pages for the various providers and all of their relevant information. Then when we add the PostGIS provider instead of updating a ton of global pages all we have to do is add the relevant pages for the PostGIS provider. Today we have a mix of these two models, which feels really weird to me.

BTW - Any idea how Trac integrates with multiple SVN instances? Will we need separate Trac projects for each provider or can we have a single Trac project that links to multiple SVN instances?

Bob

Mateusz Loskot wrote:
Robert Bray wrote:
  
Haris,

I restored the lost Oracle provider page and added the Oracle provider
to the table graphic on the home page. For Fdo2Fdo I was thinking of
adding a "Tools" link under "Essentials". Does that make sense to everyone?
    

I like this idea.

By the way, would it be possible to have some room in the FDO SVN for
such tools, non-provider codes?

In example, while I'm working on PostGIS provider, I'm developing some
command line tools - in concept, similar to OGR utilities (ogrinfo,
ogr2ogr).
After I have PostGIS provider ready, I'd like to continue development of
my tools and make them user friendly.
So, it would be great to host such tools near the FDO code.

  
Also I am pondering the general navigation of the site. I am all ears if
anyone has recommendations for improving it.
    

Yes, I'd have some loose comments. Here is my proposal of structure of
main links (these in the left column):

- About
-- Features
-- Providers Overview
-- Governance
-- License
-- History
-- FDO users

- Documentation
-- Requirements
-- Getting Started
-- FAQ
-- Wiki (-> Trac)

- Community
-- Mailing lists

- Development
-- Road Map
-- Trac
-- SVN


Cheers
  


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: More Site Cleanup

Jason Birch
In reply to this post by Robert Bray-2
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Site Cleanup

Robert Bray-2
SVN can only provide access control, revisions, mailing list, etc at the repository level. So to merge them into one repository would mean the commiter list would need to be the same for all of FDO. I don't really have an issue with that approach, but that is not the way it is setup currently.

Bob

Jason Birch wrote:
Is there a reason why you are staying with multiple SVN instances, instead of merging the providers into the core and managing access at the node level?
 
I'm pretty sure that Trac instances have to have a 1:1 relationship with SVN repositories.
 
Jason


From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Bray
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 12:51
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] More Site Cleanup

Mateusz,

Good suggestion. For the tools maybe we can create an fdotools subversion instance unless someone out there has a better idea.

In general I like your navigation approach. Where I am getting caught up is our multiple SVN instance thing. Right now we have fdo, fdocore, fdosdf, etc. Many of our pages have a provider list on them and each time we add a provider we have to touch a bunch of different pages. An alternative approach is to break the site down by provider. That is have a main page for FDO, which links to sub-pages for the various providers and all of their relevant information. Then when we add the PostGIS provider instead of updating a ton of global pages all we have to do is add the relevant pages for the PostGIS provider. Today we have a mix of these two models, which feels really weird to me.

BTW - Any idea how Trac integrates with multiple SVN instances? Will we need separate Trac projects for each provider or can we have a single Trac project that links to multiple SVN instances?

Bob

Mateusz Loskot wrote:
Robert Bray wrote:
  
Haris,

I restored the lost Oracle provider page and added the Oracle provider
to the table graphic on the home page. For Fdo2Fdo I was thinking of
adding a "Tools" link under "Essentials". Does that make sense to everyone?
    

I like this idea.

By the way, would it be possible to have some room in the FDO SVN for
such tools, non-provider codes?

In example, while I'm working on PostGIS provider, I'm developing some
command line tools - in concept, similar to OGR utilities (ogrinfo,
ogr2ogr).
After I have PostGIS provider ready, I'd like to continue development of
my tools and make them user friendly.
So, it would be great to host such tools near the FDO code.

  
Also I am pondering the general navigation of the site. I am all ears if
anyone has recommendations for improving it.
    

Yes, I'd have some loose comments. Here is my proposal of structure of
main links (these in the left column):

- About
-- Features
-- Providers Overview
-- Governance
-- License
-- History
-- FDO users

- Documentation
-- Requirements
-- Getting Started
-- FAQ
-- Wiki (-> Trac)

- Community
-- Mailing lists

- Development
-- Road Map
-- Trac
-- SVN


Cheers
  


_______________________________________________ fdo-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: More Site Cleanup

Jason Birch
In reply to this post by Robert Bray-2
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Site Cleanup

Mateusz Loskot
In reply to this post by Robert Bray-2
Robert Bray wrote:
> Mateusz,
>
> Good suggestion. For the tools maybe we can create an fdotools
> subversion instance unless someone out there has a better idea.

Bob,

Sure, that would be cool.
Every tool can live as a separate module (directory) in fdotools/trunk.

> In general I like your navigation approach.

It's a kind of ad-hoc proposal.

> Where I am getting caught up is our multiple SVN instance thing.

> Right now we have fdo, fdocore, fdosdf, etc.
> Many of our pages have a provider list on them and each
> time we add a provider we have to touch a bunch of different yespages.
> An alternative approach is to break the site down by provider. That is have
> a main page for FDO, which links to sub-pages for the various providers
> and all of their relevant information. Then when we add the PostGIS
> provider instead of updating a ton of global pages all we have to do is
> add the relevant pages for the PostGIS provider. Today we have a mix of
> these two models, which feels really weird to me.

IMHO you're right.
Small but dedicated (sub)pages for every provider would
make the website and project structure more readable.

> BTW - Any idea how Trac integrates with multiple SVN instances?
> Will we need separate Trac projects for each provider or can we have a single
> Trac project that links to multiple SVN instances?

As Trac's FAQ says, sharing the same features between
projects is not supported:

http://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/TracFaq#can-i-manage-multiple-projects-from-a-single-installation-of-trac

However, there are some config hacks presented (I'm sure our Admins will
know better than me).

Cheers
--
Mateusz Loskot
http://mateusz.loskot.net
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Site Cleanup

Paul Ramsey-2
In reply to this post by Robert Bray-2
You can actually use filters on the post-commit hooks to provide
different actions for different subdirectories of the repository. If
they code bases were fully merged, however, that would become rather
intractable.  If they were just directories in the same respository

/fdocore
/postgis
/oracle

then you could provide ACL and different post-commits pretty easily.

P

Robert Bray wrote:

> SVN can only provide access control, revisions, mailing list, etc at the
> repository level. So to merge them into one repository would mean the
> commiter list would need to be the same for all of FDO. I don't really
> have an issue with that approach, but that is not the way it is setup
> currently.
>
> Bob
>
> Jason Birch wrote:
>> Is there a reason why you are staying with multiple SVN instances,
>> instead of merging the providers into the core and managing access at
>> the node level?
>>  
>> I'm pretty sure that Trac instances have to have a 1:1 relationship
>> with SVN repositories.
>>  
>> Jason
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* [hidden email]
>> [mailto:[hidden email]] *On Behalf Of *Robert Bray
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2007 12:51
>> *To:* FDO Internals Mail List
>> *Subject:* Re: [fdo-internals] More Site Cleanup
>>
>> Mateusz,
>>
>> Good suggestion. For the tools maybe we can create an fdotools
>> subversion instance unless someone out there has a better idea.
>>
>> In general I like your navigation approach. Where I am getting caught
>> up is our multiple SVN instance thing. Right now we have fdo, fdocore,
>> fdosdf, etc. Many of our pages have a provider list on them and each
>> time we add a provider we have to touch a bunch of different pages. An
>> alternative approach is to break the site down by provider. That is
>> have a main page for FDO, which links to sub-pages for the various
>> providers and all of their relevant information. Then when we add the
>> PostGIS provider instead of updating a ton of global pages all we have
>> to do is add the relevant pages for the PostGIS provider. Today we
>> have a mix of these two models, which feels really weird to me.
>>
>> BTW - Any idea how Trac integrates with multiple SVN instances? Will
>> we need separate Trac projects for each provider or can we have a
>> single Trac project that links to multiple SVN instances?
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>> Robert Bray wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Haris,
>>>>
>>>> I restored the lost Oracle provider page and added the Oracle provider
>>>> to the table graphic on the home page. For Fdo2Fdo I was thinking of
>>>> adding a "Tools" link under "Essentials". Does that make sense to everyone?
>>>>    
>>>
>>> I like this idea.
>>>
>>> By the way, would it be possible to have some room in the FDO SVN for
>>> such tools, non-provider codes?
>>>
>>> In example, while I'm working on PostGIS provider, I'm developing some
>>> command line tools - in concept, similar to OGR utilities (ogrinfo,
>>> ogr2ogr).
>>> After I have PostGIS provider ready, I'd like to continue development of
>>> my tools and make them user friendly.
>>> So, it would be great to host such tools near the FDO code.
>>>
>>>  
>>>> Also I am pondering the general navigation of the site. I am all ears if
>>>> anyone has recommendations for improving it.
>>>>    
>>>
>>> Yes, I'd have some loose comments. Here is my proposal of structure of
>>> main links (these in the left column):
>>>
>>> - About
>>> -- Features
>>> -- Providers Overview
>>> -- Governance
>>> -- License
>>> -- History
>>> -- FDO users
>>>
>>> - Documentation
>>> -- Requirements
>>> -- Getting Started
>>> -- FAQ
>>> -- Wiki (-> Trac)
>>>
>>> - Community
>>> -- Mailing lists
>>>
>>> - Development
>>> -- Road Map
>>> -- Trac
>>> -- SVN
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>  
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fdo-internals mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
>>  
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Site Cleanup

Mateusz Loskot
In reply to this post by Mateusz Loskot
Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>
> - Community
> -- Mailing lists

I've forgot about small but important link:

-- IRC / #fdo

:)

Cheers
--
Mateusz Loskot
http://mateusz.loskot.net
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals