[Gimp-web] Static pages for m.g.o

[Raphaël Quinet]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 07:57:23 -0700, Helvetix Victorinox <helvetix@mysterious.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 11:03:14AM +0200, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> > But I don't think that generating a static index.html
> > would be a problem.  We simply have to update it when news.inc is
> > updated.  This is a simple dependency tracking problem, so it should
> > be solved easily by the Makefile.  If index.html depends on
> > includes/news.inc, it will be rebuilt every time the news file is
> > updated.
> 
> Well, heh, despite the seductive uses of the word "simple" I think there's
> really nothing simple about what is proposed (apart from the description).

Well, the part about the dependencies is simple.  If you want, I can
do that part.  I cannot see any obvious reason why including news.inc
would be different from including the other files, but maybe there are
hidden pitfalls in your script that I am not aware of.

In fact, I am considering replacing the Makefile by Makefile.in and
using a very simple configure script to set several things correctly,
including dependencies and the default DocumentRoot.  This would be
easier to use than the current system that requires you to specify the
DocumentRoot separately.  Do you want me to work on the Makefile, or
are you already editing it?

> Nevertheless, I will devise a new way to produce the top-level index.html
> and you folks can run with it.

Please do not add any special case for it, unless there is really no
other way to do it (in that case, please explain why).  The news file
is included in exactly the same way as all other files, so I don't
understand why you would need a special case for it.  I would really
like to limit this to some very simply dependency changes in the
Makefile.  I am trying to simplify the build process and to make it
easier to understand and maintain by others, so special cases should
be avoided as much as possible.

> PS: Renaming files doesn't affect CVS in any way.  There is no health or
> happiness issue. CVS doesn't even do renaming.  You add the new files
> (new names) and delete the old ones.

Yes, but then it gets more difficult to get the revision history for
these files.  Since the file extension does not matter (unless I
missed something obvious) and all files will be processed in the same
way, I prefer to keep the file extension that will require the least
amount of changes.

> PPS: Renaming isn't what will make testing and maintenance more troubleso=
me.
> it's the new code for making the index.html file which turns into a
> maintenance and testing problem.  More code == more maintenance.  Axi=
omatic.

Yes, that's why I suggest avoiding any new code.

-Raphaël