If all version specific documentation is siloed into their own
respective folders for each version, then this will be much easier to
automate as we can just simply build and publish the site on every push
to master.
Each version would be in each folder, with the unreleased version being
in the devel folder.
Currently, I think the documentation is scattered across various folders
and files in the website, so to simply build from every commit to master
would mean that users will see stuff only relevant to the unreleased
version. This may or may not be confusing.
We can use some heuristics as I mentioned earlier: keep the current way
but automate it.
- Have a github action that watches every commit, if it only touches a
list of whitelisted folders or pages that we know will not be
documentation for a future release (news, community, etc), cherry pick
it to the site branch
- Have a github action that watches for a final release and force site
to equal master
- On every commit to the site branch, build and publish the site
Francis
On 28/03/2022 8:55 pm, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote:
Having multiple APIs versions in the website has been discussed here [1].
Since this work of automation is important and has been postponed many
times in the past I think it is important to get something simple to begin
with and add "new features" like versioned documentation later on and if
there is interest.
Building the site from the master on every commit is as simple as it can
get and that's why I brought it up.
Having said that, any other option which goes one step further gets a +1
from me.
Best,
Stamatis
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/l81th3qvdwttgk135nplz983m78d62m7
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:38 AM Ruben Q L <[email protected]> wrote:
Would it be clearer if we had different API versions on the site?
We could have one API link per Calcite version (or at least for the latest
X versions) + an API link of the current master head (that could be updated
automatically).
I think this "multiple API" idea has been already discussed in the past,
but I could not find the thread.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:24 AM Francis Chuang <[email protected]>
wrote:
It looks like Infra should be able to give us a token to push to
calcite-site from our other calcite-* repos using Github actions [1].
If we can have some consensus regarding whether to keep the site branch
and maintain the current process, or to remove it and just publish from
master, I can see if I can get the automated site builds moving along.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21453
On 28/03/2022 8:23 am, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote:
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
