PR looks fine to me. Keep the svn commit stuff. Lets merge and move on On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Filip Maj <maj....@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have an issue posted to make docs publishing automatic: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-13162 > > Not to derail the topic, but there is a longer wishlist in that issue, > and I do think achieving the goals in that issue would require > reworking the docs repository quite a bit. We can discuss details in > the issue thread. > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Dmitry Blotsky > <dmitry.blot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, ideally our deployment process should be automated. Also, it should > *not* be an SVN commit. It should be an rsync or an scp command. I would > support any initiatives to move to either one of those. If we had automated > deployment, this discussion would be moot. > > > > How much would it cost us to just have a VPS with nginx? > > > > Switching to the topic of deployment docs now. Thanks, Shaz, for > bringing this up in discussion. My opinion was that we shouldn't have > impactful commands be copy-paste-able, which is why I had the instruction > to commit in paragraph text. I think that if a committer doesn't read the > full text of the deployment docs, *they should not be deploying*. I can see > the argument that if they do read the text but just don't know *how* to > commit in SVN, it's annoying to search. However at the top of that section > is an explicit link to a quick SVN tutorial. I understand that not everyone > reads the fine print, but IMO committers should, and we should explicitly > discourage that behaviour. > > > > Ultimately I'm going to defer to Shaz here, but I think it's important > to consider the benefits of making deployment *feel* more serious by making > RTFD necessary. > > > > Kindly, > > Dmitry > > > >> On Sep 13, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Jan Piotrowski <piotrow...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> I am actually surprised deploying is a manual process at all. > >> Having read the steps, I understand why of course. > >> > >> As a person that jumps in on all kinds of projects, I absolutely > >> prefer docs that list each and every little step needed (including all > >> the `cd` etc). > >> > >> The need for manual steps or checks could be emphasized by using a > >> numbered list or checklist for the individual steps. > >> > >> (Will this stay on SVN even after the repo switch to Github? Merging > >> and `gh-pages` is so nice and simple) > >> > >> -J > >> > >> 2017-09-13 9:02 GMT+02:00 Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com>: > >>> This relates solely to instructions on how to *build* the site, and > not the > >>> contents of the site itself. > >>> > >>> Bringing this up here for discussion since a committer wants to revert > a > >>> change by another committer, and there is potential for disagreement. > >>> > >>> The pull request to revert is here: > >>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/pull/729 > >>> > >>> There has been discussion on the original change here: > >>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/commit/ > 96c5ab0f98c0b62160661dcd9a9db5549fe43f94 > >>> > >>> Two issues here: > >>> 1. The change from `gulp build --prod` to `npm run serve` > >>> 2. This instruction here (not reverted in the PR): > >>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/commit/ > d61f3ddc84dac4b013c0607230b9cf10921a416b > >>> > >>> Issue (1) has some discussion in the GH link above for the original > change. > >>> > >>> Issue (2) there was some discussion in the Cordova Slack, that the > reason > >>> the `svn commit` wasn't there in the first place is to prevent > copy/paste > >>> of the commands without going through the changes step by step since > >>> deploying to a site is an expensive operation that can screw up the > site if > >>> proper care was not done. > >>> > >>> My reason for adding the command was that the instructions are not > complete > >>> (when I had to do it myself when updating the docs for cordova-ios > >>> release). I understand the rationale, but the instructions seem > incomplete > >>> (especially for new committers that haven't heard of SVN, I know they > can > >>> Google it, but that's more friction) and my other reason is: we should > >>> trust that committers will do the right thing. > >>> > >>> Not to make a mountain out of a mole-hill but it's important that these > >>> revert discussions be out in the open so as misunderstandings/hurt > feelings > >>> don't occur, and we can nip it in the bud. > >>> > >>> Thoughts from the community? > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > >
