Shall we not just go with option 2 then? It's not like we can't change our mind if it doesn't work.
I assume this does not require a formal release to update the website :) On 18 March 2015 at 16:03, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > Unless someone want to do double work, or not end up with this component in > Apache Commons, it seems simpler to me to just follow what Apache Commons > components do. > > Gary > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
