Definition review: Gilbane's CM definition

I had a quick read through Gilbane's CM definition to see if it would spawn any ideas or reactions.

Web publishing meets e-Business. Seems like they want to shrink the definition into meaning web content management, excluding stuff like digital document management. I don't mind this, but personally I prefer to use CM as an umbrella for most of the other management types, including web. And I see that towards the end of the document different analysts views on this are presented. And indeed some of them share my view, Gartner even claims (uh, mind that this was in year 2000) that no full CMS does not yet exist (still a valid claim?). Coincedentially, CAP even uses the term "umbrella".
Oh, and there's a very nice comment on knowledge management (this one's for you, Thommy ;)):

Fortunately, the assault on logic and language that was knowledge management has run out of steam. We'll still see the term used by consultants and some technology vendors (including Microsoft and Lotus), but we won't have listen to specious marketing pitches claiming that managing knowledge will replace managing data, documents, content, etc.

Just to clarify, me and Thommy (good friend and KM-specialist) both agree that KM can envelope CM, and CM can envelope KM-tools. We shouldn't try to deny the usefulness of KM, I think KM's golden age has yet to arrive (knowledge is important, and corporate knowledge is not the same as corporate content). As technology improves, KM-tools will become more feasible. In my experience, a KM-evangelist doesn't try to replace CM with his or her own tools, but include CM in the suite of KM-tools. KM and CM do not compete. I guess this is where the commersialism of Gilbane shines through.

But back to the subject, mixing code and content, no surprises there. There's an interesting view of perhaps seperating transactional information out of the content term, but the theory fails. Any CMS but "brochureware" systems (nice word!) produces/supports transaction, like this very blog has transactional information in shape of the RSS-feed (further down on your right).

All in all, it is an old, but still very valid definition. A bit business oriented, but otherwise it didn't contribute much to my understanding of the term.

Note to all content- and knowledge managers, rest assured: You don't have to know what it is to figure out a good way to do it!

Comments

Git-SVN Mirror without the annoying update-ref

This post is part of a series on Git and Subversion . To see all the related posts, screencasts and other resources, please click here . So no sooner than I had done my git-svn presentation at JavaZone , I got word of a slightly different Git-SVN mirror setup that makes it a bit easier to work with: In short, my old recipe includes an annoying git update-ref step to keep the git-svn remote reference up to date with the central bare git repo. This new recipe avoids this, so we can simply use git svn dcommit directly. So, longer version, with the details. My original recipe is laid out in five steps: Clone a fresh Git repo from Subversion. This will be our fetching repo. Set up a bare repo. Configure pushing from the fetching repo to bare repo In the shoes of a developer, clone the repo Set up an SVN remote in the developer's repo In the new approach, we redefine those last two steps: (See the original post for how to do the fir...

Git Stash Blooper (Could not restore untracked files from stash)

The other day I accidentally did a git stash -a , which means it stashes *everything*, including ignored output files (target, build, classes, etc). Ooooops.. What I meant to do was git stash -u , meaning stash modifications plus untracked new files. Anyhows, I ended up with a big fat stash I couldn't get back out. Each time I tried, I got something like this: .../target/temp/dozer.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/temp/core.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/temp/joda-time.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/foo.war already exists, no checkout Could not restore untracked files from stash No matter how I tried checking out different revisions (like the one where I actually made the stash), or using --force, I got the same error. Now these were one of those "keep cool for a second, there's a git way to fix this"situation. I figured: A stash is basically a commit. If we look at my recent commits using git log --graph --...

Git-SVN Mirror for multiple branches

This post is part of a series on Git and Subversion . To see all the related posts, screencasts and other resources, please click here . This extends the posts where I explained how to set up a git-svn mirror for a single directory. NOTE: If you just want to use Git against a SVN repo on your own, stop reading ,now, and stick to the git-svn basics. However, if you want a setup where you can share a Git repository with colleagues and friends while still interfacing with Subversion, keep reading. I'll show how to set up a git-svn mirror for a standard Subversion project with trunk , branches and tags . It's a bit like the single directory mirror, but in order to keep all branches in sync, it's a bit more fiddling. The good part is that this setup enables us to cherry-pick commits from one branch to the other. This is slightly smoother than using svn merge . First of all, let's repeat how our Subversion and Git-repositories look physically (roughly the sa...

Git tools for keeping patches on top of moving upstreams

At work, we maintain patches for some pretty large open source repositories that regularly release new versions, forcing us to update our patches to match. So far, we've been using basic Git operations to transplant our modifications from one major version of the upstream to the next. Every time we make such a transplant, we simply squash together the modifications we made in the previous version, and land it as one big commit into the next version. Those who are used to very stringent keeping of Git history may wrinkle their nose at this, but it is a pragmatic choice. Maintaining modifications on top of the rapidly changing upstream is a lot of work, and so far we haven't had the opportunity to figure out a more clever way to do it. Nor have we really suffered any consequences of not having an easy to read history of our modifications - it's a relatively small amount of patches, after all. With a recent boost in team size, we may have that opportunity. Also the need for be...

The Dream of a Bi-directional Git-SVN mirror

This post is part of a series on Git and Subversion . To see all the related posts, screencasts and other resources, please click here . I just got an email asking me how one can set up a bi-directional Git-SVN mirror. It ended up being quite a long answer, so I'll post it here for the benefit of other Git-SVN readers with the same idea. As you may know, I'm a proponent of my own Git-SVN setup . I remember trying to go down the path of a bi-directional repository, but always ran into problems. Here is how it could work: However nice this would be to have, it can be very hard to achieve in practice: Git-svn requires working in a non-bare repository, so pushing to it is by default refused. You can work around this by doing this in the target sync repo: git config receive.denyCurrentBranch ignore You also have to automatically perform a git reset --hard in the syncing repo after each push (by some git hook?), because the work-dir is c...