Hi,
Josh Berkus wrote:
>>Which is why we investigated CMSs in depths before we started, and found
>>that even advanced ones such as Bricolage couldn't meet our requirements
>>
>>:-(.
>
> No offense, but nobody "investigated existing CMSes in depth", or if they did,
> it was not discussed on WWW. What happend in my recollection was that the
> people who were in favor of CMSes (like me) were not willing/able to do the
> work to set them up, and the people who liked a more nuts-and-bolts system
> were willing to do the work, so that's what we went with. The people who do
> the work get to make the decisions on how it's to be done.
>
> Bricolage, for example, runs the WHO web site, the Register, Radio Free Asia,
> and and several other major, multi-lingual sites. It is also designed for
> mirroring, working on the idea of "burning" stuff to HTML files instead of
> dynamically served content. It's quite capable of doing PostgreSQL.org.
> The problem is that it requires Perl Mason expertise to set up and design
> pages, and our WWW team is primarily HTML and PHP coders.
Yes, exactly, so now we must choose between an ugly (I openly admit this) system
written in ugly PHP that *runs* the current development version of
postgresql.org [1] (that BTW has some open TODO items [2]) and a wonderful
state-of-the-art CMS written in magnificient Perl that could *potentially* run a
splendid new postgresql.org, if only someone actually wanted to do some work
instead of praising the virtues of that particular CMS.
Isn't the choice obvious? ;)
> Gavin Roy is currently working on a system, Framewerk, which may become a
> better fit for our community once he gets export-to-static-html working.
> Actually, we could probably use it for Techdocs right now.
[1] http://wwwdevel.postgresql.org/
[2] http://wwwdevel.postgresql.org/todo
