publishing group suggestion
Paul W. Frields
stickster at gmail.com
Thu Apr 29 02:29:22 UTC 2010
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 02:27:26PM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 14:17, Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 11:12 < quaid> ok, here's a thought ...
> > 11:12 < quaid> long tradition is that 'docs' gave full commit access
> > to content; I see people still do
> > that with f'hosted repos
> > 11:12 < quaid> (mostly)
> > 11:13 < quaid> we had publishing separate because it was different,
> > separate, required training to not
> > break, etc.
> > 11:13 < quaid> but if we're going to be publishing websites with
> > publican as the cms (basically)
> > 11:13 < quaid> why not just use 'docs' group as who can publish?
> > What I was also saying is that we have this:
> > CMS for docs.fp.o:
> > * Publican handles publishing and building of content for the web.
> > * FAS handles authentication.
> > * Beacon with DocBook extensions could be the wysiwyg editor.
> > 'docs' group membership could be sufficient for publishing. Why add
> > another group when we have one well populated with all the people we
> > want able to publish immediately?
> > This lowers the barriers a lot for using Publican, but it doesn't give
> > us a CMS that invites the 10x participation that we get through the
> > wiki-like interfaces. Having an easy web authentication layer with a
> > nice WYSIWYG editor (and a publish button) is a very important goal.
> Want to fold in the individual guide repos (fhosted.o) as well?
You could actually do this without just chgrp'ing everything, if
there's ACL support there. Just add permissions for the docs group as
ACLs for all the repos. That gives extra flexibility for the future
and accomplishes the goal at the same time.
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
More information about the docs