It would be great if we manage to wrap up CALCITE-3129 and have an automated build for the website.
The thing that complicates the procedure in general (automated or not) is the fact that we don't want to publish API related changes on the web before they are officially released. I understand the benefits for trying to maintain this practice but I would be willing to sacrifice those for having simpler procedures/scripts. I rarely search for any javadoc (Calcite or other) online because whenever I need something the IDE fetches it for me. In most cases, the javadoc won't be enough and I will need to dig in the code which is again fetched automatically by IDE. If nothing works, and the project is open source, I will simply download the respective project and look into the javadoc/code directly. Apart from that, users will rarely jump to the latest Calcite version directly so having the corresponding javadoc online might not be very helpful. Long story short, another option would be to build/update the website directly after every commit on master or at certain intervals (e.g., daily) and not have any other branches to maintain. If there are really people using the published javadoc on the website [1], I would really like to hear their thoughts about this proposal. Best, Stamatis [1] https://calcite.apache.org/javadocAggregate/ On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 10:57 PM Francis Chuang <[email protected]> wrote: > Ideally, I would like to see that the site builds are automated by CI, > we still have CALCITE-3129 [1] open. > > My thinking is that if we automate the site building and deployment > process, we can use the following heuristics: > - Build the site completely and deploy when a final release tag is > pushed to the repo. > - Build the site on a partial basis in all other cases: > - Option 1: Check out the last final release tag and apply changes to > the site that only touches certain whitelisted categories such as news > and community. This should allow us to not have documentation changes > for code deployed before the final release.This should then allow us to > get rid of the site branch > - Option 2: We keep the site branch, but we automate the current > process. On every commit to master, if it is a change to the files in > the site directory, we check if the change only touches certain > whitelisted categories such as news and community. If so, we cherry pick > that into the site branch automatically using Github Actions and build > and deploy the site. When a final release tag is pushed to the repo, we > use Github Actions to make the master and site branches equal and > automatically build and deploy the site. > > This would negate the need to build and publish the site manually and > simplify the process as we always only commit to master. As an added > bonus, we if we keep the site branch, but automate the process, maybe we > can lock the site branch so that only CI can push to it. The downside of > course, is that we're relying on heuristics for the partial build, so > there's some "magic" to it. > > Francis > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3129 > > On 26/03/2022 8:58 am, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Thanks for starting this discussion Liya. It is important to find which > > parts of the process are unclear and improve them if possible. > > > > The current procedure for updating the website remains unchanged and it > is > > documented here: > > > https://github.com/apache/calcite/blob/a6a1e2cef332893fd90286098869c56529e052c3/site/README.md > > > > If the procedure is not followed, which has happened a few times in the > > past, meaning that someone commits directly in site without committing in > > master then we will have commits in site that may get lost forever. > > When we discover such commits we should port them to master. The > > cherry-pick now goes in the opposite direction (from site to master). > > This is usually discovered/done by the release manager and that's why we > > have the respective instructions in the howto [1]. > > > > After a release we don't care much what happens because master and site > > should be equal. As Francis pointed out this is usually done with a force > > push. > > > > Regarding Julian's question the commit hashes before the force pushes > done > > by Liya are the following (according to commits@calcite): > > * master -> dcbc493bf699d961427952c5efc047b76d859096 > > * site -> aa9dfc7dbc64c784040cf20ed168016ae3b9c2c5 > > > > Best, > > Stamatis > > > > [1] > > > https://github.com/apache/calcite/blob/a6a1e2cef332893fd90286098869c56529e052c3/site/_docs/howto.md?plain=1#L696 > > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 7:36 PM Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Does anyone know (or could find out) the SHA of the master and site > >> branches at the time that Fan attempted to move the site changes over? > >> If so, we could recreate the same environment, and figure out a set of > >> git commands that would have worked then and will work for the next > >> release manager. This process is safe because we can do these > >> experiments in a local git sandbox, without pushing to any remote. > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 6:09 AM Fan Liya <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Francis, > >>> > >>> Thanks for your feedback. > >>> > >>> It seems we should choose option 2. > >>> In addition, it seems less risky to run "git push --force" commands in > >>> the site branch. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Liya Fan > >>> > >>> Francis Chuang <[email protected]> 于2022年3月25日周五 12:14写道： > >>>> > >>>> Hi Liya, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for bringing this up. We have always done the following when > >>>> committing: > >>>> 1. Always commit to master. > >>>> 2. If we need to publish the change to the site now (for example, new > >>>> committer or announcement), cherry-pick the change into the site > branch > >>>> and publish it. > >>>> 3. After a release, make the site branch the same as master (git reset > >>>> --hard master) and force push (git push --force origin site). > >>>> > >>>> Francis > >>>> > >>>> On 25/03/2022 3:03 pm, Fan Liya wrote: > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> As part of the release process, we need to synchronize the master and > >>>>> site branches (Please see > >>>>> > >> https://calcite.apache.org/docs/howto.html#making-a-release-candidate). > >>>>> Usually, the site is behind the master branch by some commits. > >>>>> If the existing commits in the site branch are in the same order as > >> in > >>>>> the master branch, the task is easy: just switch to the site branch, > >>>>> and run > >>>>> > >>>>> git rebase master > >>>>> > >>>>> However, if some commits are in different orders, it can be tricky. > >>>>> For example, the master branch may have the following commits (in > >>>>> order): > >>>>> > >>>>> A, B, X1, X2, ... , Xn. > >>>>> > >>>>> and the site branch may have the following commits (in order): > >>>>> > >>>>> B, A, X1, X2. > >>>>> > >>>>> Basically we have two choices: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. We can live with the out of order commits, because after > >>>>> cherry-picking commits X3, X4, ... , Xn to the site branch, the file > >>>>> contents will be consistent. > >>>>> > >>>>> The problem is that, since the two branches have diverged, we cannot > >>>>> use the rebase command. Instead, we have to manually cherry-pick > >>>>> commits individually, which requires large effort. In addition, for > >>>>> any subsequent release processes, we have to manually cherry-pick > >> each > >>>>> commit. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. We need to make the commits order consistent, which will make it > >>>>> easy for subsequent releases. > >>>>> However, the problem is that, to make the commits order consistent, > >>>>> some git force push command is unavoidable, which is risky to some > >>>>> extent. > >>>>> > >>>>> So what is the recommended way to do this? Thanks in advance for > >> your feedback! > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> Liya Fan > >> > > >
