Re: [Spi-private] Git repositories, website, puppet

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Joerg Jaspert <joerg(at)spi-inc(dot)org> wrote:
> You can find http://git.spi-inc.org/gitweb/ - a gitweb representation of
> some git repositories run by SPI.
>
> The first repository to note is board.git, which is intended to grow
> into a place where board members (and project associates) put files
> related to the SPI workings that don't fit elsewhere. You will see that
> there is a projects/ subdir, every SPI project *can* store SPI<->project
> related data there and the project advisor can write into their
> project's own subdir, not elsewhere.
>
> Right now you can only find the SPI letterhead we use as a template for
> new letters as well as one letter send on behalf of Debian there, but
> hey, we just started it.

Kudos! I'd expect this to be a splendid place to put documents that
are to be public, including constitutional materials, resolutions,
minutes, and such.

My local LUG has been using a wiki to capture board minutes for a
couple years now, which, after reflection, seems rather inferior to
storing them as Plain Old Text files, version controlled.

> As you might have heard in various places already, we want to go away
> From our old Plone install and use something else. While the plans for
> this aren't entirely new, we finally got movement into it, thanks to
> Bdale and Jonathan. So the website.git is the second repository you can
> find there.

I think you'll want to be pretty "intentional" about usage of the
repository for this.

Personally, I have wound up using 2 repositories to manage my personal web site:

- There's a repo which captures the "source code" form of my web
site. I write it
using DocBook, and have a makefile which transforms it into the "deployable"
version. The makefile includes a "make install" target, which
copies the HTML
form over to...

- A repo which captures "target form" of things. This notably
includes the HTML form,
but also png/jpeg files, some additional HTML that is
hand-generated, and some
CGI-like stuff.

The first repo is never, in any fashion, visible to the world. The
second periodically gets "git pushed" over to my web hosting provider
to indicate the new form of the site.

An important thing is to be clear on what parts are "source" and what
parts are "target" that are to be directly visible. It's annoying to
receive patches for HTML when that's not intended as an editable form.

The "web team" doubtless needs to determine how they wish to manage
the site, and the relationship between that and what is deployed.
Hopefully these aren't too much more than a Makefile apart :-).
--
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html