On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il lun 5 giu 2017, 17:56 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > I don't have a super strong opinion here, but I'm not sure I understand > > > the concern. The textile files are stored in the repo, so any doc > changes > > > should be reviewed and committed as any other code change, no? Granted > > that > > > it is in the hands of a committer to push the changes to the web site, > > > which isn't very friendly. > Merging the website source files to bookkeeper repo is a simple step. But moving the website sources files to bookkeeper repo will break the build procedure (this is how CMS is working), so we need to move the build procedure along with moving the source files. > > > > > > > Two concerns: > > > > - Website is in the CMS repo, not in bookkeeper's source repo. The review > > process are different between these two repo and a change to website, > docs > > and source code is fragmented, which makes reviewing a bit difficult. > > - Changes to bookkeeper docs require a manual commit to CMS repo to > trigger > > building the website. It isn't friendly to committers. > > > > > > > > > > In the case we move out of CMS, where would the site be hosted? > > > > > > > There are three questions behind this: > > > > 1) Where do we host the source files for the website and docs? > > 2) How do we generate the static content? > > 3) Where do we host the generated content? > > > > My comments: > > > > 1) I'd like the source files of website and docs to be along with source > > codes. If a change requires modifying docs and website, it is very > > convenient to review all of them in one same pull request. At the > minimum, > > I'd like the source files of website and docs are in the same repo. > > 2) There are tons of static content generator, for example, Jekyll, > Hugo. I > > want one is friendly to github pages, so developers/commiters can easily > > use github pages to validate the changes and also show the result when > > asking for reviews. > > 3) The host generated content can be on any git repo under asf-site > branch, > > using gitpubsub - > > https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/git_based_websites_available > > > As this post is saying it would be an easy step at least to switch to git, > maybe we can just create a directory website and cut and paste the actual > content. > We can lose the history, or maybe we could also keep the while history, but > in all of my migrations from svn to git I always created a new repo and not > merged a svn with a git one. Maybe it would be possible as well. > > I would like to at least make this step so that we will have all in git > > > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > > > > > -Flavio > > > > > > > On 03 Jun 2017, at 21:42, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Our site is written using Textile, I found this > > > > https://github.com/jekyll/jekyll-textile-converter maybe the switch > to > > > > Jekyll will be easy > > > > > > > > The other problem will be to switch the cms, maybe just a request to > > > > infra to switch to github pages will be enough > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > 2017-06-03 19:15 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com>: > > > >> I don't think there is any enforcements from Apache INFRA side. You > > can > > > use > > > >> any technology for hosting website and documentation. I do see a lot > > of > > > >> projects using Jekyll-like solutions for the website, where they > > > typically > > > >> have a separate XXX-site git repo and use gitpubsub (which is just a > > > simply > > > >> git push) for publishing the content. > > > >> > > > >> For DL, originally the website was generated by internally tool > called > > > >> DocBird. When we open sourced DL, we push the generated static > content > > > to > > > >> gh-pages and uses github pages for hosting the content. After we > moved > > > to > > > >> incubator, we changed to use Jekyll to generate the static content > and > > > add > > > >> the generated content on asf-site branch. > > > >> > > > >> For me, I don't care what technologies we are using. I'd like a > > simpler > > > >> workflow, same/similar as the source code workflow and every changes > > > should > > > >> be under same/similar review process. Any git-based, github-friendly > > > >> solution would be preferred here. If we agree on moving, we should > > call > > > for > > > >> volunteers to help with this. > > > >> > > > >> - Sijie > > > >> > > > >> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Enrico Olivelli < > eolive...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> It has been some time since you made this proposal, on some ticket. > > > >>> At the moment I did not make any concrete proposal because I wanted > > to > > > >>> study how to make the conversion. > > > >>> I am in favour of switching to a more popular sokution like jekyll > > and > > > >>> maybe markdown language > > > >>> Using git will be good as well. It will be more integrated. > > > >>> > > > >>> I am not an expert I think we need some volunteer toto carry on the > > > >>> migration. > > > >>> > > > >>> On the infra side it would be good to listen to experiences from > > other > > > >>> apache projects. On new DL site what technology are you using? > > > >>> Kafka website has been restyled some month ago, maybe we can take a > > > look > > > >>> > > > >>> -- Enrico > > > >>> > > > >>> Il sab 3 giu 2017, 02:21 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> ha > scritto: > > > >>> > > > >>>> I'd like to raise another discussion about moving bookkeeper > website > > > from > > > >>>> CMS to other static generators (e.g. Jekyll, Hugo). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> BookKeeper uses Apache CMS for generating the documentation and > > > website > > > >>>> [1]. The website source code is hosted at a svn repo, which now > > > becomes > > > >>>> obsolete from > > > >>>> our current review/workflow. I also heard committers complaining > > about > > > >>> the > > > >>>> steps to get a change out. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I think it is the time to also think of moving the website away > from > > > CMS > > > >>> to > > > >>>> a more Github friendly solution. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> We should consider follows for the new solution: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> - have similar review flow as the main source code (github pull > > > >>> requests). > > > >>>> - developers can easy to folk and run/validate their changes > > locally, > > > and > > > >>>> maybe also easier for the other reviews to verify. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Any thoughts? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> [1] : > > > >>>> > > > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BOOKKEEPER/ > > > >>> Building+the+website+and+documentation > > > >>>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- Enrico Olivelli > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Enrico Olivelli >
