On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:09:04PM -0500, Matt Rolf wrote:
> Let's move the wiki to building brics. I think that
would work out.
> I'm not that enthusiastic about moving it since we have
so much else
> to do, but in the long run it would probably be
better.
>
> If we can get Nick & others to help, so much the
better.
I'm not convinced this is necessary -- and like others have
mentioned, I think "partitioning" the
"Bricolage site" is something that should be
avoided if possible.
This case of templates strikes me as similar to something I
was thinking of earlier when people were talking about
disributed SCMs (a la fossil, mercurial, git, etc) -- nimble
and well suited for ad-hoc groups that could come together
and then disband... for the life of template development the
lifetime of a working-group might be a week, using fossil,
and then having a checkin-worthy piece. That piece could be
submitted to a single TemplateOfficer w/ rights to the
perl.org SVN and committed. The person(s) acting as
TemplateOfficers could be rotated/swapped-in/out as
necessary.
The job of the officer would be running a periodic batch
update to the SVN repo for the ad-hoc groups submissions.
It's only an idea at this point, but the "problem"
we're trying to solve doesn't seem to me to be something
that requires a new server (and domainname) -- especially
when it seems everybody who's weighed in so far sees value
in keeping Bricolage centrally located and
"branded".
In any event, (for what it's worth), I hope there's more
discussion about this.
Comments?
--
Brad Harder,
Method Digital Logic
http://www.methodlogic.net
|