New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add new blogs.openstreetmap.org site #102

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jan 26, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@gravitystorm
Contributor

gravitystorm commented Nov 30, 2016

This is the code that @tomhughes wrote, but I've changed upstream so that it generates index.html instead of planet.html. I tested it with test-kitchen and the site generates properly.

tomhughes and others added some commits Nov 25, 2016

Remove directoryindex directive
This has changed upstream from planet.html to index.html
@gravitystorm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gravitystorm

gravitystorm Jan 25, 2017

Contributor

Could somebody review this PR please?

Contributor

gravitystorm commented Jan 25, 2017

Could somebody review this PR please?

@tomhughes

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tomhughes

tomhughes Jan 25, 2017

Member

I don't think there's any problem with the code (well I probably would say that since I wrote most of it ;-)) it's just there wasn't any reason to merge it until we were ready to use it - as it stands it's just an unused cookbook.

The operational question is which machine we're going to run it on...

Member

tomhughes commented Jan 25, 2017

I don't think there's any problem with the code (well I probably would say that since I wrote most of it ;-)) it's just there wasn't any reason to merge it until we were ready to use it - as it stands it's just an unused cookbook.

The operational question is which machine we're going to run it on...

@gravitystorm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gravitystorm

gravitystorm Jan 25, 2017

Contributor

it's just there wasn't any reason to merge it until we were ready to use it

Fair enough. I wasn't sure from the silence whether there were problems or not or if you we reconsidering anything.

Contributor

gravitystorm commented Jan 25, 2017

it's just there wasn't any reason to merge it until we were ready to use it

Fair enough. I wasn't sure from the silence whether there were problems or not or if you we reconsidering anything.

@zerebubuth

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@zerebubuth

zerebubuth Jan 25, 2017

Contributor

I think there's are good reasons to merge it now, even if it's currently unused:

  1. Being merged into master instead of on a branch means the code won't accumulate merge conflicts that we have to fix later. I know the conflicts will exist anyway, and having it on a branch simply delays that work. However, in my experience it often builds up to levels which are onerous, and end up discouraging further progress on the PR.
  2. Having lots of open PRs, especially stale ones, splits attention and conversation over many concurrent comment streams. I think it is also widely assumed that it indicates an unmaintained project.

We plan to use this, so it's not unnecessary code - just unused at present. In my opinion, the best option is to merge it and deal with any further changes in a future PR, if any are necessary when we launch it.

Contributor

zerebubuth commented Jan 25, 2017

I think there's are good reasons to merge it now, even if it's currently unused:

  1. Being merged into master instead of on a branch means the code won't accumulate merge conflicts that we have to fix later. I know the conflicts will exist anyway, and having it on a branch simply delays that work. However, in my experience it often builds up to levels which are onerous, and end up discouraging further progress on the PR.
  2. Having lots of open PRs, especially stale ones, splits attention and conversation over many concurrent comment streams. I think it is also widely assumed that it indicates an unmaintained project.

We plan to use this, so it's not unnecessary code - just unused at present. In my opinion, the best option is to merge it and deal with any further changes in a future PR, if any are necessary when we launch it.

@tomhughes tomhughes merged commit 4f37c04 into openstreetmap:master Jan 26, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment