440859 - updated content for getfirebug.com

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Infrastructure & Operations Graveyard :: WebOps: Other, task)

Description

[Justin Dolske [:Dolske]]

I have some updated content for getfirebug.com. And a few questions:

* It looks like the old site used server side includes (SSI) quite a bit. Is this something that can be turned on in our hosting, or should this content be converted to a static form?

* The old site used a few .htaccess redirects, what's the best way to support them now?

  RedirectMatch permanent ^/jp$ http://getfirebug.com/jp.html
  RedirectMatch permanent ^/donate.html$ http://getfirebug.com/contribute.html
  RedirectMatch permanent ^/downloads.html$ http://getfirebug.com/relnotes.html

* The old site used a .htaccess rule for the .xpi (firefox extension) content type... No xpis are currently up so I can test if this is working or not, but we'd want the equivalent:

  AddType application/x-xpinstall .xpi

* The old site had WordPress running in /blog. I'm assuming MoCo won't want yet another instance of WordPress to maintain. What's the best thing to do here? Get a blog setup on wordpress.com and redirect /blog/* there?

Comment 1

[Justin Dolske [:Dolske]]

Updated site content (includes previous patch from bug 438898):

    http://people.mozilla.com/~dolske/tmp/firebug-new.tar.gz

(Can't attach here because it's too big.)

Note that this contains a /.htaccess and /releases/.htaccess -- these can presumably be removed when the questions in comment 0 are addressed (not that these get used anyway...).

Comment 2

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

(In reply to comment #0)
> * It looks like the old site used server side includes (SSI) quite a bit. Is
> this something that can be turned on in our hosting, or should this content be
> converted to a static form?

SSI is fine, afaik. Don't see any problem why you can't continue to use it.

> * The old site used a few .htaccess redirects, what's the best way to support
> them now?

We can just enable .htaccess support for getfirebug.com so that your .htaccess files will be used. That seems like the easiest thing to do so that you can control them.

> * The old site used a .htaccess rule for the .xpi (firefox extension) content
> type... No xpis are currently up so I can test if this is working or not, but
> we'd want the equivalent:
> 
>   AddType application/x-xpinstall .xpi

You can do this in .htaccess, just like you were doing.

> * The old site had WordPress running in /blog. I'm assuming MoCo won't want yet
> another instance of WordPress to maintain. What's the best thing to do here?
> Get a blog setup on wordpress.com and redirect /blog/* there?

I'm going to be filing another bug shortly to set up another wpmu instance (apart from blog.m.c) that we can use for other sites that Mozilla hosts but should be semi-separate. This will allow us to dramatically cut down on the number of WordPress instances we have while still allowing sites to have some semblance of their own WP instance (since we would just rewrite /blog/ to the wpmu instance). How does that sound?

Comment 3

[Justin Dolske [:Dolske]]

(In reply to comment #1)
> Updated site content (includes previous patch from bug 438898):
> 
>     http://people.mozilla.com/~dolske/tmp/firebug-new.tar.gz

Ok, I've imported this into the SVN repo. Not yet live.


(In reply to comment #2)

> We can just enable .htaccess support for getfirebug.com so that your .htaccess
> files will be used. That seems like the easiest thing to do so that you can
> control them.

Ok. Let's do that then. Any security issues with this?

> (since we would just rewrite /blog/ to the wpmu instance). How does that sound?

We can probably just use that.

Comment 4

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

(In reply to comment #3)
> Ok, I've imported this into the SVN repo. Not yet live.

Ready to go live? If so, I can do that.

> (In reply to comment #2)
> > We can just enable .htaccess support for getfirebug.com so that your .htaccess
> > files will be used. That seems like the easiest thing to do so that you can
> > control them.
> 
> Ok. Let's do that then. Any security issues with this?

Nope. Just putting them in the apache vhost helps apache some, but since I don't think that many people will be going to this site, it should be fine.

> > (since we would just rewrite /blog/ to the wpmu instance). How does that sound?
> 
> We can probably just use that.

Cool!

Comment 5

[Justin Dolske [:Dolske]]

Ok, please push r16138.

Discussed .htaccess some more with reed, going to set this stuff in Apache instead of enabling .htaccess for the site/SVN itself. Less to potentially screw up. :)

Comment 6

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

All pushed. dolske confirms it looks good.