Micael>How so? Just delete the branch or rebase to delete the commits. I fail to see the complexity here.
The complexity is not technical. It is INFRA who prohibits rebases. That is why I suggest we don't put "build artifacts" into the main source repositories. In the worst case we just throw away "preview repo". Here is a recent relevant INFRA ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18499?focusedCommentId=16865680&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16865680 TL;DR there was <<history overwrite in Apache source repositories requires " [email protected] or our infra admin escalation">> They denied to remove third-party jar files from the repository (e.g. lib/js_rhino1_6R5.jar), and I did not escalate that because, well, I don't want spend time there. Michael>Why do we need both to be in the same repository if we're just using it for testing? I just assume they both could share some resources (e.g. css? images?) and have cross-links (e.g. Calcite site points to Avatica pages). So I thought it would be just simpler to put everything into a single repo so it looks closer to the production site. Do you suggest to have different "test" sites for Calcite and Avatica? Michael>With GitHub pages, published content is stored on a Michael>separate gh-pages branch. I'm used to `git clone https://github.com/organization/repo.git` It clones all the branches and tags. Apparently gp-pages would be there as well. Do you think everybody is cloning git repositories in a different way? Vladimir
