Moving this onwards:
tl;dr:
proposal:
ask for svnpubsub now
not CMS
worry about the production of the site later.
------
Assumption:
I'm assuming that the site is small (what it is, download this, maven
that, contribute, support) so for me the choice is a bit "whatever" and
low running cost is important. Adding any steps to the release process
discourages "release early, release often".
[This is an entirely personal and forward looking statement etc etc.]
CMS is *possibly* not an option long term (it costs infra to maintain,
not all projects use it, it conflicts with gitpubsub.)
As CMS hooks into the VCS, gitpubsub is non-zero work so my guess is
that some time down the line, there will be a choice for ASF between CMS
or gitpubsub on resource grounds.
[/]
Options, and some pros and cons:
Publishing: svnpubsub
(and gitpubsub might arrive)
then a choice of how the site is made:
* Take the CMS perl magic independently
Don't see anyone here keen on doing that.
The only advantage is not wandering to far from CMS.
* Maven plugin (probably many plugin choices)
The maven site plugin is too focused inwardly on process.
Familiar, in usage and to even to some visitors
* Jekyll (c.f. github pages)
It's a ruby gem. Needs local setup even if run by maven (?)
MSWindows is not 1st class.
Jekyll is first-amongst-equals on github.
* HTML and whatever you want to do locally to produce that
Minimal project implications.
* one of the zillions of other templating systems.
Baseline should be "obviously better than Jekyll for the project"
I know there has been some talk of projects using github pages. I don't
know the state of that or what the full implications are.
Andy
On 12/03/15 16:10, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
The Maven build is also more easily open for Github pull requests - and if
you can use Markdown files they would reasonably render also on Github.
Commons seems however to use an XML based template system..? (I looked at
Commons Math)
(note: we can also github mirror the cms from svn - see for example
https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-site - its just harder to apply
patches and to render it)
With CMS Maven build - can you still use the cms.apache.org "UI" to edit
files?
On 12 Mar 2015 13:03, "Andy Seaborne" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/03/15 07:36, Sergio Fernández wrote:
My vote goes to option 2, mainly because the compatibility with the
Apache Commons project site.
On 11/03/15 23:27, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]>
Gary, how would we fit into Commons website-wise while incubating?
Could we
still use the same system, but publish to
commonsrdf.incubator.apache.org
?
Good question! I know you can override a bunch of settings in your POM
but
I am not sure about publishing the site to a different host.
I have quite experience with that setup. So I'll check if we can build a
subsite in our temporal web space, and I'll be back with conclusions
during the weekend.
I'm assuming the website will be quite small and relatively stable once
it's all set up.
The choice should be whatever makes the long term running costs low if the
setup is all about the same.
I have only used CMS/perl for real; the CMS ability edit a page in the
browser to quickly fix the small things is great and anyone can do it.
If all the CMS choices have that, then I think I'm just -0.5 on raw
svnpubsub. ant - don't use it myself anymore. shell - not (easy on)
windows.
Which leaves:
1 CMS (default-Perl-build)
2 CMS (Maven-build)
Andy
