@Michael, the svn repo will still be kept, but just unused. See kafka's
old site: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka/site/
I have now pushed a the current working copy of our site to
https://github.com/apache/calcite-site using svn export.
I have also updated my ticket with infra to ask them to switch the
site's publishing mechanism from svnpubsub to gitpubsub.
I'll now proceed with updating the publishing instructions for our site
to git.
On 16/02/2019 5:37 am, Julian Hyde wrote:
Agreed, the history of the web site is not very important.
Julian
On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:58 AM, Michael Mior <[email protected]> wrote:
I think we may want to keep the old SVN repository around if this is
the case, but I personally don't have a problem with losing history in
the new git repo. On a related note, it would be good to find a
process for the new repo that can work with a shallow clone so we
don't have to have the entire history of the site to push a change.
--
Michael Mior
[email protected]
Le ven. 15 févr. 2019 à 05:29, Francis Chuang
<[email protected]> a écrit :
Hey everyone,
I have now created the calcite-site repo in Gitbox. It is now available
via Github and the Gitbox endpoint, but currently empty.
I am currently trying to migrate the svn repo, but it is taking a very
long time and eventually timed out for me. A member of the ASF infra
team has also confirmed that it can take hours or days to complete [1].
I feel that it would probably be easier if we just copy the existing
files from the svn repo and make that the first commit in the git repo.
This is what Kafka did for their migration [2].
How important are the commits for site pushes? In my opinion it's
probably acceptable if we lose them and start anew with the git repo as
they do not document changes to our code base.
Happy to hear your thoughts!
Francis
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17846
[2]
https://github.com/apache/kafka-site/commit/ba6c994ca09629b047ab9175f882877ba03b92da
On 11/02/2019 9:00 pm, Francis Chuang wrote:
Hey all,
ASF project sites have the ability to use git instead of subversion as
their repository for web site content [1]. It has been available since
2015 and appears to be quite stable. Quite a few other projects have
also moved their websites to git and subsequently, Gitbox (for using
Github as their source of truth. As an example, see the Arrow project [2].
I myself would love to see this as I find gits interface and ux to be
much easier to use compared to svn. It also reduces the need to context
switch between Git and svn when editing and pushing the site.
My overall goal is to find a way to automate the publishing and build of
our websites either via Jenkins builds (there are some projects are
doing this already when I searched infra) or the new Github actions [3].
Having the site hosted in Git would make this process much easier to
automate. I will need to get in touch with infra to clarify a few things
and to see if this is feasible, but I think this is a worthwhile endeavor.
How do you guys feel about moving our site's repository from svn to GitBox?
Francis
[1] https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/git_based_websites_available
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17655
[3] https://github.com/features/actions
