<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=854135220-15012007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Is there a reason why you are staying with multiple SVN
instances, instead of merging the providers into the core and managing
access at the node level?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=854135220-15012007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=854135220-15012007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I'm pretty sure that Trac instances have to have a 1:1
relationship with SVN repositories.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=854135220-15012007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=854135220-15012007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Jason</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Robert
Bray<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 15, 2007 12:51<BR><B>To:</B> FDO Internals
Mail List<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [fdo-internals] More Site
Cleanup<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Mateusz,<BR><BR>Good suggestion. For the tools maybe we can create an
fdotools subversion instance unless someone out there has a better
idea.<BR><BR>In general I like your navigation approach. Where I am getting
caught up is our multiple SVN instance thing. Right now we have fdo, fdocore,
fdosdf, etc. Many of our pages have a provider list on them and each time we add
a provider we have to touch a bunch of different pages. An alternative approach
is to break the site down by provider. That is have a main page for FDO, which
links to sub-pages for the various providers and all of their relevant
information. Then when we add the PostGIS provider instead of updating a ton of
global pages all we have to do is add the relevant pages for the PostGIS
provider. Today we have a mix of these two models, which feels really weird to
me.<BR><BR>BTW - Any idea how Trac integrates with multiple SVN instances? Will
we need separate Trac projects for each provider or can we have a single Trac
project that links to multiple SVN instances?<BR><BR>Bob<BR><BR>Mateusz Loskot
wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid45ABD020.6050808@loskot.net type="cite"><PRE wrap="">Robert Bray wrote:
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><PRE wrap="">Haris,
I restored the lost Oracle provider page and added the Oracle provider
to the table graphic on the home page. For Fdo2Fdo I was thinking of
adding a "Tools" link under "Essentials". Does that make sense to everyone?
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=""><!---->
I like this idea.
By the way, would it be possible to have some room in the FDO SVN for
such tools, non-provider codes?
In example, while I'm working on PostGIS provider, I'm developing some
command line tools - in concept, similar to OGR utilities (ogrinfo,
ogr2ogr).
After I have PostGIS provider ready, I'd like to continue development of
my tools and make them user friendly.
So, it would be great to host such tools near the FDO code.
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><PRE wrap="">Also I am pondering the general navigation of the site. I am all ears if
anyone has recommendations for improving it.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=""><!---->
Yes, I'd have some loose comments. Here is my proposal of structure of
main links (these in the left column):
- About
-- Features
-- Providers Overview
-- Governance
-- License
-- History
-- FDO users
- Documentation
-- Requirements
-- Getting Started
-- FAQ
-- Wiki (-> Trac)
- Community
-- Mailing lists
- Development
-- Road Map
-- Trac
-- SVN
Cheers
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BODY></HTML>