Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: PGDN and CVS
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:31:49 +0200
Message-ID: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C79CC@algol.sollentuna.se>
Thread-Topic: [pgsql-www] PGDN and CVS
Thread-Index: AcW+kIcT6CwluUdAQASZMbpU/xojqAAAHbZAAAW3VSA=
From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>
To: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>,
	"Gevik babakhani" <gevik@xs4all.nl>, <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>

> 	1.	Do we want to put the static PGDN files in CVS=20
> anyway? Should we keep the PGDN files separate not mixing=20
> with the current site's CVS?=20
>=20
> 	=20
>=20
> Yes, we do want them in CVS because we build the entire from=20
> there & the backend database. we don't want to start pulling=20
> in content from additional places as that just makes it much=20
> harder to rebuild the servers if there is ever a problem.

While I agree with you in general, here's a point I'd liek to add. :-)

Gevik, if I get your latest blog post right, you are back to a custom
CMS and not using Drupal? Then, IMHO, another option is if you can build
the site completely with PHP code on our site framework and store all
the data in the site database. In this case I see no more reason to
store the static pages for this one than there is for the docs or other
parts of the site. But this assumes that *all* the code required to
maintain the site is in our framework, and we're not relying on an
outside CMS.

//Magnus