We have an issue posted to make docs publishing automatic: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-13162
Not to derail the topic, but there is a longer wishlist in that issue, and I do think achieving the goals in that issue would require reworking the docs repository quite a bit. We can discuss details in the issue thread. On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Dmitry Blotsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, ideally our deployment process should be automated. Also, it should > *not* be an SVN commit. It should be an rsync or an scp command. I would > support any initiatives to move to either one of those. If we had automated > deployment, this discussion would be moot. > > How much would it cost us to just have a VPS with nginx? > > Switching to the topic of deployment docs now. Thanks, Shaz, for bringing > this up in discussion. My opinion was that we shouldn't have impactful > commands be copy-paste-able, which is why I had the instruction to commit in > paragraph text. I think that if a committer doesn't read the full text of the > deployment docs, *they should not be deploying*. I can see the argument that > if they do read the text but just don't know *how* to commit in SVN, it's > annoying to search. However at the top of that section is an explicit link to > a quick SVN tutorial. I understand that not everyone reads the fine print, > but IMO committers should, and we should explicitly discourage that behaviour. > > Ultimately I'm going to defer to Shaz here, but I think it's important to > consider the benefits of making deployment *feel* more serious by making RTFD > necessary. > > Kindly, > Dmitry > >> On Sep 13, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Jan Piotrowski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I am actually surprised deploying is a manual process at all. >> Having read the steps, I understand why of course. >> >> As a person that jumps in on all kinds of projects, I absolutely >> prefer docs that list each and every little step needed (including all >> the `cd` etc). >> >> The need for manual steps or checks could be emphasized by using a >> numbered list or checklist for the individual steps. >> >> (Will this stay on SVN even after the repo switch to Github? Merging >> and `gh-pages` is so nice and simple) >> >> -J >> >> 2017-09-13 9:02 GMT+02:00 Shazron <[email protected]>: >>> This relates solely to instructions on how to *build* the site, and not the >>> contents of the site itself. >>> >>> Bringing this up here for discussion since a committer wants to revert a >>> change by another committer, and there is potential for disagreement. >>> >>> The pull request to revert is here: >>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/pull/729 >>> >>> There has been discussion on the original change here: >>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/commit/96c5ab0f98c0b62160661dcd9a9db5549fe43f94 >>> >>> Two issues here: >>> 1. The change from `gulp build --prod` to `npm run serve` >>> 2. This instruction here (not reverted in the PR): >>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/commit/d61f3ddc84dac4b013c0607230b9cf10921a416b >>> >>> Issue (1) has some discussion in the GH link above for the original change. >>> >>> Issue (2) there was some discussion in the Cordova Slack, that the reason >>> the `svn commit` wasn't there in the first place is to prevent copy/paste >>> of the commands without going through the changes step by step since >>> deploying to a site is an expensive operation that can screw up the site if >>> proper care was not done. >>> >>> My reason for adding the command was that the instructions are not complete >>> (when I had to do it myself when updating the docs for cordova-ios >>> release). I understand the rationale, but the instructions seem incomplete >>> (especially for new committers that haven't heard of SVN, I know they can >>> Google it, but that's more friction) and my other reason is: we should >>> trust that committers will do the right thing. >>> >>> Not to make a mountain out of a mole-hill but it's important that these >>> revert discussions be out in the open so as misunderstandings/hurt feelings >>> don't occur, and we can nip it in the bud. >>> >>> Thoughts from the community? >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
