Finding the red thread

First post in a long time now. Managed to catch quite a nasty cold the other day, and the week before was pretty cramped with turning one open source CMS into a webshop (will post about it later).

One of the main issues with my thesis as now is that it lacks a red thread through it. The thesis is an answer to a question; a research question. Am I ready to specify a context of the question? See writing about open source and open standards in wcms is still too general. I need some sort of approach or specialty, an aspect I can attack.

In my experience, you have to be careful when reading through your own papers. Do it too often, and you grow tired of your own content. My technique will now be to first look quickly through the thesis (7500 words) and the blog (11000 words, bloglines is a great tool for viewing your whole blog on one page), and see if I can select an aspect based on the content I've already collected.

Afterwards, I will go through it again, more slowly this time, adding more content, references, generally putting in the fixes suggested by A.

The aspect

Been a while since I read my first blog-posts. Interesting to note that I've all along proclaimed customizability as the most important feature of a WCMS, especially in an off-the-shelf WCMS, or an open source WCMS. Reading through the blog gave me the impression that I've been bouncing back and forth between different aspects, roaming from knowledge management to the architecture of a WCMS, the social aspects of open source, and the concept of a web portal. I doubt all these concepts can be treated properly in the thesis.

Reading quickly through the thesis. Some chapters follow the the thread, others are immensly subjective and will have to be heavily edited. The abstract and introduction suggest the following red thread:

requirements of WCMS
how requirements are met by open source systems (OSS) and open standards
how OSS compares to proprietary WCMS
how to compare different OSWCMS

So the choice remains. What are the options?

The aspects of open source and open standards
WCMS as a knowledge management tool
A study of an open source content management system project (social and technical aspects)
The business case of using an open source WCMS
The technical implications of JSR-170

As previously mentioned, my current title is The Use of Open Standards and Open Source in Web Content Management Systems. Why can't I stick to this aspect? Is it too general? Too subjective?

Nonetheless, I've got material for aspect for all these aspects, especially number 3.

Depending on feedback from A, I want to try to make my current title the red thread. After this has been settled, I'll give the thesis a good write-thru and see how it goes.

Comments

Open source CMS evaluations

I have now seen three more or less serious open source CMS reviews. First guy to hit the field was Matt Raible ( 1 2 3 4 ), ending up with Drupal , Joomla , Magnolia , OpenCms and MeshCMS being runner-ups. Then there is OpenAdvantage that tries out a handful ( Drupal , Exponent CMS , Lenya , Mambo , and Silva ), including Plone which they use for their own site (funny/annoying that the entire site has no RSS-feeds, nor is it possible to comment on the articles), following Matt's approach by exluding many CMS that seem not to fit the criteria. It is somewhat strange that OpenAdvantage cuts away Magnolia because it "Requires J2EE server; difficult to install and configure; more of a framework than CMS", and proceed to include Apache Lenya in the full evaluation. Magnolia does not require a J2EE server. It runs on Tomcat just like Lenya does (maybe it's an idea to bundle Magnolia with Jetty to make it seem more lightweight). I'm still sure that OpenAdvant...

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 Git Users Mailing List

A year ago or so, I came across the Git-user mailing list (aka. "Git for human beings"). Over the year, I grew a little addicted to helping people out with their Git problems. When the new git-scm.com webpage launched , and the link to the mailing list had disappeared, I was quick to ask them to add it again . I think this mailing list fills an important hole in the Git community between: The Git developer mailing list git@vger.kernel.org - which I find to be a bit too hard-core and scary for Git newbies. Besides, the Majordomo mailing list system is pretty archaic, and I personally can't stand browsing or searching in the Gmane archives. The IRC channel #git on Freenode, which is a bit out-of-reach for people who never experienced the glory days of IRC. Furthermore, when the channel is busy, it's a big pain to follow any discussion. StackOverflow questions tagged git , these come pretty close, but it's a bit hard to keep an overview of what questio...

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 --...