This is probably a really stupid question. Is there a way to get a magento 1.9 site which is hosted on a godaddy server (idk why they would do such a thing), into a github so that these people can develop properly? Im not too family with a cms on a github. What happens if they update content within the cms by logging into it? etc. If anyone has any sort of resources I can use, i can't seem to find any. More of an application developer myself
Short answer: yes. There's a good gist explaining how to use git to manage a live site.
Longer answer: Yes. You'll need to init a repo on the site as it is, i.e. your public_html or htdocs directory. You can the push the content of this repo into a bare repo on Github, and manage sharing/access to the repo therein. After your devs have made changes and you're ready to put them into production, you'd git pull from the github site to bring over the changes. There's a LOT to git, and it's not simple, but there are good resources out there available by googling.
What happens if they update content within the cms by logging into it?
CMS content lives within the database. That content doesn't get pushed into github, unless you make dumps of the database that you keep in the repo. BAD IDEA!
Related
I am creating a jekyll blog using Jekyll. In the instructions I see that there is a command to build the site using the command jekyll build.
However, I noticed that when I make changes to my code/post and perform a git push origin master the content and changes are uploaded automatically. This makes me wonder why I would need to "build" the site.
Could someone help me understand what the difference is? I'm currently trying to add Google Analytics to my blog and I suspect that knowing the difference between the two will help me get it to work properly. Thanks.
to turn a Jekyll app source code into a site you view, it has to do that build step to create the HTML that is served.
Github pages automatically does the build step for you after the code is pushed (if the repo/brach is configured for Pages).
So, you are right. It is not necessary for you to run the command.
The reason you may want to run it is to run the site locally (using your computer as the server). Or if you want to deploy it to some generic static host other than Pages. Or if you want to just view the final compiled site for some reason.
There might seem to be other dupes like this, but this SO post is the closest with a hacky solution.
I got a theme that uses the tag plugin from here : http://charliepark.org/tags-in-jekyll/ Here is my site repo on github. It's hosted here : http://www.gideondsouza.com
Tags don't work online but work offline. On my local machine I see a _/site/tag/.. with folders for each tag. But this tag folder isn't generated on github? In fact I don't even see a _site folder, so maybe my understanding is off. Perhaps I need to install the github-pages gem?
I could probably fix it like in the SO post mentioned earlier, but this is hacky, I will always have to remember to copy the generated tags folder into the root.
Anything I'm missing?
Github pages only support selected plugins (see documentation here).
If you want to use your plugin, you have to generate locally and to push the _site content online.
A friend has asked me to do some work on his existing site which was built in Rapidweaver. I'm on Windows, so is there another way I can access and edit his site?
The Rapidweaver project file is meant to be edited only in Rapidweaver, really. As far as I know, the only way around would be to use an HTML editor to modify the pages that are already in the server. However, I would not reccomend you to do it unless you are not going back to Rapidweaver anymore. Because changing the files in the server does not update your local Rapidweaver files. So, you could end up editing something in the server, then getting back to Rapidweaver and upload a "new" version that would not be completely up to date (the previous changes in the server version would be overriden by the older rapidweaver project).
For that kind of work, a CMS (Content Management System) is a more flexible way to work. Nowadays, one of the most common is Wordpress. It will require an inicial setup but after it is working it can be updated from anywhere via web browser, or even from an app in your iPhone. But it is not a Rapidweaver based sollution.
There are a couple CMS related plugins or stacks (Dropkick CMS, Armadillo, Easy CMS, Total CMS...) for Rapidweaver that could also be useful in this context. Once again, first you would need to buy a licence and to setup the website using one of those plugins or stacks. Only then you would be able to edit on the go.
First, a confession. In about 10 years of professional development, I've never used a source control system. There, that feels better. My historical setup (as recommended by management, ha!) has been to create dated folders on a server and copy-and-paste my data into it each evening.
I've known for a long time that a much better, manageable solution would be to use git or Mercurial to manage my source but I've never taken the time to learn any of these new tools because myold system has always worked well enough for my needs as the lone developer for every project I've ever worked on.
I have finally change this setup. I've installed Mercurial on my Mac, which after a bit of reading, I prefer over git. As a GUI front-end, I have installed SourceTree which appears to be easy to use and quite friendly. The problem I am having is that I can't find a very simple, straight-forward walkthrough for setting up a server repository that I use for pushing changes to each evening. I'm sure it's there, I just can't find it.
I've honestly tried to Google this, but there is something about the term "SourceTree". I can't find anything useful because half of the information I find is in regards to using git and it tends to involve pushing a project to a site like github.com, which is not pertinent in my case.
Additionally, I have skimmed the Mercurial documentation and I still may not be entirely clear about the full commit/update/push/pull/branch/merge concept. I just want to get something setup rather fast that will back-up and track the changes of my projects, without having to be a source control guru.
How do I setup a simple repository on a Windows network server, and push and pull changes each evening? My company want me to store my data in a personal folder, on a network share that is backed up to tape and is then stored off site.
I'm sure it has to be simple. I just want to be sure that I'm doing it correctly so that in the case that I need to access a back up, it is there and can be easily pulled... or branched.. or whatever.
Well, it depends on the kind of the server you are going to use.
Let's assume it's not a Windows server (just a guess, as you're a Mac user). Let's also assume that right now you only need it for yourself, not for a bunch of users.
Then the simplest way is to use SSH. Suppose the server is server, and you have an account rlh there. You'll need to have a public/private key pair for a seamless access (no need to enter the password on each pull/push). You'll need to install Mercurial on the server as well, obviously.
On the server, create a repo (in your home dir, for example):
rlh#mac$ ssh server
rlh#server$ mkdir myproject
rlh#server$ cd myproject
rlh#server$ hg init
On your machine, clone the repo:
rlh#mac$ hg clone ssh://rlh#server/myproject myproject
The default target will be set automatically, and you should be able to pull/push with no additional configuration.
Feel free to ask if you have a question regarding this.
When searching for hosting solutions, best not to include the term SourceTree in your query — SourceTree is just a front-end tool that is in principle unrelated to Mercurial hosting. That might explain the lack of useful information.
Here is an overview of ways to set up Mercurial servers:
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/PublishingRepositories
Personally I’m using plain hgweb and that has served me well.
Also I would recommend to consider using a hosting service such as BitBucket or Google Code. It requires much less effort to set up and maintain. Here is an overview of Mercurial hosting services:
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/MercurialHosting
Personally I’m also considering moving my self-hosted Mercurial repositories over to BitBucket, because of reduced maintenance overhead, and also it has functionality like bug tracker, wiki etc.
We're having a spirited discussion about this at my workplace. We're talking about user uploaded images for a bunch of products, not images needed to display the basic site. I say "no way" but I'm curious what others think.
Update: Just to clarify. These are customer supplied images for products that they are entering/modifying.
I agree with 'no way'.
Anything that may change on the site through day-to-day use, or is editable by whoever administers the website I consider to be 'content'. This includes uploaded files and database content, both of which are backed up separately. Nothing on the website that is in version control changes once it's been deployed. Easier that way.
Other ways of asking if something should be in version control:
Do the images change?
Are the changes related to anything else?
Can mistakes be made?
Is traceability wanted/needed?
If the rest of the site is version controlled, version control the images.
If the images are generated, version control the generator.
Presumably, what you are talking about is content that would be classified as user data, as opposed to project files. That stuff, while important, does not need versioning - that needs a plain old backup mechanism.
I recently added a new project into a fresh SVN repository, and every time I look at the 'uploads' folder I realise how stupid I was to include that in the initial commit.
It seems like what you're talking about is content that is in (or perhaps will be) in a database. If a customer is supplying you a list of products as well as the pictures of those products, then that should all come from a database. In this case, I wouldn't because your database should be backed up, but not in the VCS.
If it is not, and your web site is static, then I would only because it is "part of the site."
If you feel you must revision it, put these resources out of the path of the main repository somehow, and then give it a dedicated repository just for that content.
You don't want everyone who has to check out code getting a copy of every image when they checkout or update, its slow, and pointless, and having them in your primary tree will just have more headaches than you can Imagine.
/common_ancestor
/project_code/ # repository a
/resources_dir/ # repository b
If you have to use symlinks or web-server magic to make this happen, then do that, but whatever you do, DON'T put content like that in your main repository.
As far as backups vs revisioning go, revisioning it like this does give you a slight ease if you're using SVN as your distribution method as well, that way if a developer needs a copy of the images for testing purposes, its relatively easy to get a relatively up-to-date set of them.
If you aren't going to expose the versioning to the customers, then what would be the point?
The customers are already free to use version control on their own end, before they submit the files. You may want to encourage them to do so.