Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: Integration Requirements WAS: Launching PostgreSQL KB Project
	Mark 2
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 18:35:00 +0100
Message-ID: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E8D8@algol.sollentuna.se>
Thread-Topic: [pgsql-www] Integration Requirements WAS: Launching PostgreSQL
	KB Project Mark 2
Thread-Index: AcX3l4X9jpFmTzxFRMSGqK6qHWl8UQAluvZQ
From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>
To: <josh@agliodbs.com>, <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>

> While we discuss on the *other list* the business=20
> requirements for a Postgres KB, it would be really helpful to=20
> get together on *this* list a document giving the=20
> requirements for projects to be incorporated into the=20
> PostgreSQL.org web infrastructure.  Such a document would be=20
> very helpful, as well, to others wanting to add things to the=20
> web site.

Josh, you are doing this backwards. You said it yourself in another
mail, start with the *functinoal requirements*.

At this point, the integration requirements should be "work directly in
the current website without any other product". If this cannot be done,
then we need to look at other products. But we cannot answer this
question until we have the functional specification.

My suggestion therefor - write a functional specification *completely
without considering what technical issues might show up with either
one*, and then we take it from there. And consider doing this on a more
"diplomatic" place than a technical mailinglist for a different project.


One quick comment on Daves mail:
> - Moving data; originally we'd looked at exporting from the=20
> cms into the filesystem, and having script that did a cvs=20
> add/remove/commit over the entire tree, into the main web=20
> CVS. This is still preferrable from an 'ease of rebuilding'=20
> point of view, but might be easier just to rsync the content=20
> from the filesystem of the cms machine to wwwmaster.

I think long-term, just dumping the files over is not a managable idea
unless we have corporate committment for maintaining the backend.
Because sure, the website will work, but if the backend goes down nobody
will be able to use any of these uber-cool KB functions that's the whole
reason it exists. It's more like a stop-gap solution.

(Bottom line, of course, I still think this should be *actually
integrated* in the main website, and not just copied over from somewhere
else. If possible. Again, see above point, it's way to early to actually
comment on that now if the project is run that way.)


//Magnus