I'm not sure I see a need for creating another branch or asking infra to assist in the update itself. We are effectively just adding the source and history to the asf-site branch, which is where the site bits have to go, byt overwriting it, which we can do. The only thing we should really need infra to do is change the default branch setting to asf-site after the update is done, and then master can be removed.
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 13:51, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I will do the right thing. I will create a branch called future-master. > And ask infra to update everything. > > I will send a separate thread with a clear title. > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 6:42 AM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > A necessary change would be updating the readme to describe the > > updated build + publish process. I've raised a PR against your test > > branch with suggested changes: > > https://github.com/clebertsuconic/activemq-website/pull/1/files > > > > Robbie > > > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 10:33, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Do you mean move things over to the asf-site branch? Seems reasonable > > > to me. I'd start a separate thread though giving folks a heads up that > > > e.g you will do it tomorrow/some-other-point unless discussed > > > otherwise, so its clear when the change might happen and that lazy > > > consensus can be taken as only a few folks have commented on this > > > thread. > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 18:02, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Should we move it then ? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:52 AM Robbie Gemmell < > > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > What you did is just what the exiting build script did, so that > > should > > > > > be fine if it was previously. I tried with and without the > > > > > --incremental and it didnt make a difference here (wasn't much > > > > > different time wise either). Strange that you saw this, and strange > > > > > you now dont, but at least its working now. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 22:07, Clebert Suconic < > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not see the error again. I guess it was an effect of working > > > > > > late hours.. I messed something up. > > > > > > > > > > > > I was playing with --incremental on jekyll perhaps that's what > > caused it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Playing with a single branch would make it a lot easier. It > > bothers me > > > > > > to keep moving between branches as my IDE gets crazy on indexing > > files > > > > > > (don't ask.. I prefer IDE than VIM... I use vim emulation on idea > > > > > > though ;) ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If more people could double check this is okay.. perhaps we can > > > > > > replace asf-site by my test branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:09 PM Clebert Suconic > > > > > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I copied the folder from the branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Check out asf-siite > > > > > > > Move it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checkout the test branch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moved it back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:31 AM Robbie Gemmell < > > > > > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I dont see that happen when I run the build, and hadnt actually > > ever > > > > > > >> seen the 'typechange' file status before. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The content/schema/core/activemq-core.xsd is actually a > > symlink, and > > > > > > >> some googling suggests the 'typechange' status mainly happens > > when > > > > > > >> such link is replaced with an actual file. If I do that > > deliberately, > > > > > > >> I then see the same status you do. Some posts suggested it can > > happen > > > > > > >> with certain copy commands, that have dereferenced the link and > > copied > > > > > > >> the referenced files content. How did you initially populate the > > > > > > >> 'content' dir your subsequent status is showing as being > > updated? > > > > > > >> Running the build afresh, or copying prior build output? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Robbie > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 22:53, Clebert Suconic < > > > > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I have a branch where I'm using a single branch: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > https://github.com/clebertsuconic/activemq-website/tree/test > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > The only concern I have so far is that any time I build, I > > get a > > > > > > >> > change into a schema: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Changes not staged for commit: > > > > > > >> > (use "git add <file>..." to update what will be committed) > > > > > > >> > (use "git checkout -- <file>..." to discard changes in > > working > > > > > directory) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > typechange: content/schema/core/activemq-core.xsd > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Although I would consider that anyone would check stuff before > > > > > committing.. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Any ideas? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 1:03 PM Justin Bertram < > > jbert...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > If it's simpler and documented that sounds like a win to me. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Justin > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 11:41 AM Robbie Gemmell < > > > > > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 16:47, Clebert Suconic < > > > > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:44 AM Robbie Gemmell < > > > > > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thats what we do at Qpid and what I've seen other > > > > > > >> > > > > > projects do, I find it simpler overall. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Tl;DR: > > > > > > >> > > > > I'm all +10000000 on this... what we need to change on > > infra. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Can we keep the history from master > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > We wouldnt need to change much to get everything on the > > same > > > > > branch I > > > > > > >> > > > dont think, and it seems like we can do so without infra: > > I > > > > > just tried > > > > > > >> > > > on your last commit as a test and was able to force-push > > the > > > > > asf-site > > > > > > >> > > > branch in the website repo. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > So basically it seems it needs something like: repopulate > > the > > > > > asf-site > > > > > > >> > > > branch (or a test branch) with the master history locally, > > > > > simplify > > > > > > >> > > > the build script to only build and nothing else, fix up > > the > > > > > .gitignore > > > > > > >> > > > file appropriately, build things, commit, and [force] > > push. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Assuming of course others agree that it is what should > > happen? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Robbie > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > -- > > > > > > >> > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > -- > Clebert Suconic
