HI all, Today the Roma install got updated to 4.18, which includes the bugfix I added for quotation marks in titles. That's a minor thing, but in the process, over the last couple of months, Ian Rifkin and I have been working out a setup which enables us to deploy and test new versions on tei-c without needing his intervention, and enables us to get him to switch from an old to a new version when we're ready just by changing a pointer. This all needs documenting, but the question is where should it go? It has slightly gnarly stuff like Apache rewrite rules and tei-c.org filesystem paths, so I'm not sure whether it belongs on the wiki, or in a TCW, or somewhere slightly more private. I think probably a TCW, but I thought I should check first. What do you think? Cheers, Martin
I've had no reply from this, and I'll be removed from the list at the end of the year, so this is just a prod to see if anyone has any opinions on it. If nobody cares, I'll create a TCW. Cheers, Martin On 15-12-23 12:41 PM, Martin Holmes wrote:
HI all,
Today the Roma install got updated to 4.18, which includes the bugfix I added for quotation marks in titles.
That's a minor thing, but in the process, over the last couple of months, Ian Rifkin and I have been working out a setup which enables us to deploy and test new versions on tei-c without needing his intervention, and enables us to get him to switch from an old to a new version when we're ready just by changing a pointer.
This all needs documenting, but the question is where should it go? It has slightly gnarly stuff like Apache rewrite rules and tei-c.org filesystem paths, so I'm not sure whether it belongs on the wiki, or in a TCW, or somewhere slightly more private. I think probably a TCW, but I thought I should check first. What do you think?
Cheers, Martin
Martin -- First of all, thanks to you and Ian for doing the work up front. But to the issue, I don't understand why "slightly gnarly stuff like Apache rewrite rules and tei-c.org filesystem paths" would do better in a TCW than on the wiki. My instinct is that this sort of thing is better documented on the wiki, where rapid editing by more people is more easily supported. Besides, it's not really a working paper, is it? All that said, I think it is really important that we the Council get our head around documentation. Maybe the GitHub vs website vs wiki vs something else conversation should be on the agenda early in the new year. FWIW, I think it's a minor plus to author things in TEI, but a major minus to have to use the CMS.
I've had no reply from this, and I'll be removed from the list at the end of the year, so this is just a prod to see if anyone has any opinions on it. If nobody cares, I'll create a TCW.
Today the Roma install got updated to 4.18, which includes the bugfix I added for quotation marks in titles.
That's a minor thing, but in the process, over the last couple of months, Ian Rifkin and I have been working out a setup which enables us to deploy and test new versions on tei-c without needing his intervention, and enables us to get him to switch from an old to a new version when we're ready just by changing a pointer.
This all needs documenting, but the question is where should it go? It has slightly gnarly stuff like Apache rewrite rules and tei-c.org filesystem paths, so I'm not sure whether it belongs on the wiki, or in a TCW, or somewhere slightly more private. I think probably a TCW, but I thought I should check first. What do you think?
Hi Syd, The reason I thought of a TCW is that this is not documentation on how to set up Roma for yourself; it's documentation on how the Roma implementation(s) on tei-c are actually set up right now (which is absolutely not the way you'd recommend anyone else do it, for a variety of historical and idiosyncratic reasons to do with the shared infrastructure and the other stuff running on the server). There is already a generic page on how to set up Roma for yourself on the wiki: http://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php/Roma although it needs updating to cover the move the GitHub. Cheers, Martin On 15-12-27 03:23 PM, Syd Bauman wrote:
Martin --
First of all, thanks to you and Ian for doing the work up front. But to the issue, I don't understand why "slightly gnarly stuff like Apache rewrite rules and tei-c.org filesystem paths" would do better in a TCW than on the wiki. My instinct is that this sort of thing is better documented on the wiki, where rapid editing by more people is more easily supported. Besides, it's not really a working paper, is it?
All that said, I think it is really important that we the Council get our head around documentation. Maybe the GitHub vs website vs wiki vs something else conversation should be on the agenda early in the new year. FWIW, I think it's a minor plus to author things in TEI, but a major minus to have to use the CMS.
I've had no reply from this, and I'll be removed from the list at the end of the year, so this is just a prod to see if anyone has any opinions on it. If nobody cares, I'll create a TCW.
Today the Roma install got updated to 4.18, which includes the bugfix I added for quotation marks in titles.
That's a minor thing, but in the process, over the last couple of months, Ian Rifkin and I have been working out a setup which enables us to deploy and test new versions on tei-c without needing his intervention, and enables us to get him to switch from an old to a new version when we're ready just by changing a pointer.
This all needs documenting, but the question is where should it go? It has slightly gnarly stuff like Apache rewrite rules and tei-c.org filesystem paths, so I'm not sure whether it belongs on the wiki, or in a TCW, or somewhere slightly more private. I think probably a TCW, but I thought I should check first. What do you think?
participants (2)
-
Martin Holmes -
Syd Bauman