Alright, created https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/520 [image: pr-520.png] Reduces staging upload from 500M down to 270M, and halves the number of files from ~22k to 11k.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:58 PM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> wrote: > I believe tags will be necessarily because for anyone looking for old docs > that have been removed, they will need to browse back in history, not just > browse the tree of directories. > -P. > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 6:46 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin <mig...@google.com> wrote: > >> Last time I talked with Scott I brought this idea in. I believe the plan >> was either to publish compiled site to website directly, or keep it in >> separate storage from apache/beam repo. >> >> One of the main reasons not to check in compiled version of website is >> that every developer will have to pull all the versions of website every >> time they clone repo, which is not that good of an idea to do. >> >> Regards, >> --Mikhail >> >> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:42 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Pablo, the docs are generated into versioned paths, e.g., >>> https://beam.apache.org/documentation/sdks/javadoc/2.5.0/ so tags are >>> not necessary? >>> Also, once apache/beam-site is merged with apache/beam the release >>> branch should have the relevant docs (although perhaps it's better to put >>> them in a different repo or storage system). >>> >>> Thomas, I would very much like to not have javadoc/pydoc generation be >>> part of the website review process, as it takes up a lot of time when >>> changes are staged (10s of thousands of files), especially when a PR is >>> updated and existing staged files need to be deleted. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:15 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin <mig...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 For removing old documentation. >>>> >>>> @Thomas: Migration work is in backlog and will be picked up in near >>>> time. >>>> >>>> --Mikhail >>>> >>>> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:54 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 for removing pre 2.0 documentation (as well as the entries from >>>>> https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/) >>>>> >>>>> Isn't it part of the beam-site changes that we will no longer check in >>>>> generated documentation into the repository? Those can be generated and >>>>> deployed independently (when a commit to a branch occurs), such as done in >>>>> the Apex and Flink projects. >>>>> >>>>> I was told that Scott who was working in the beam-site changes is on >>>>> leave now and the migration is still pending (see note at >>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/master/website). Is anyone else >>>>> going to pick it up? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Thomas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Is it worth adding a tag / branch to the repositories every time we >>>>>> make a release, so that people are able to dive in and find the docs? >>>>>> Best >>>>>> -P. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:09 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would guess that users are still using some of these old releases. >>>>>>> It is unclear from Beam website which releases are still supported or >>>>>>> not. >>>>>>> It probably makes sense to drop documentation for releases < 2.0. (I >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> suggest keeping docs for 2.0). For the future I can work on updating the >>>>>>> Beam website to clarify the state of each release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The older docs are not directly linked to and are in Github commit >>>>>>>> history. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there are no objections I'm going to delete javadocs and pydocs >>>>>>>> for releases older than 1 year, >>>>>>>> meaning 2.0.0 and older (going by the dates here >>>>>>>> <https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/>). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:51 AM Daniel Oliveira < >>>>>>>> danolive...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The older docs should be recorded in the commit history of the >>>>>>>>> website repository, right? If they're not currently used in the >>>>>>>>> website and >>>>>>>>> they're in the commit history then I don't see a reason to save them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:51 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> I'm writing a PR for apache/beam-site and >>>>>>>>>> beam_PreCommit_Website_Stage is timing out after 100 minutes, >>>>>>>>>> because it's >>>>>>>>>> trying to deletes 22k files and then copy 22k files (warning >>>>>>>>>> large file >>>>>>>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Website_Stage/1276/consoleText> >>>>>>>>>> ). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It seems that we could save a lot of time by deleting the older >>>>>>>>>> javadoc and pydoc files for older versions. Is there a good reason >>>>>>>>>> to keep >>>>>>>>>> around this kind of documentation for older versions (say 1 year >>>>>>>>>> back)? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> Got feedback? go/pabloem-feedback >>>>>> <https://goto.google.com/pabloem-feedback> >>>>>> >>>>> -- > Got feedback? go/pabloem-feedback > <https://goto.google.com/pabloem-feedback> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
