+1 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Anthony Baker<aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: Yes, please. Let’s call the repo geode-site. Use two branches: master and asf-site. If we can auto-build and push to asf-site that would be awesome.
Anthony > On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:38 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > +1 > > I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed to > include docs that are generated from the last release, but the site > instructions say the site should be generated from develop. A separate repo > with a single branch will probably reduce confusion. > > We also need to script the website building and publishing, and ideally > have the publishing done by a CI system based on commits. It looks like > some other projects are talking about doing this with jenkins jenkins - see > INFRA-10722 for example. > > -Dan > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller <kmil...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I think that the website content that is currently in geode/geode-site >> ought to be moved to its own repository. The driving reason for this is >> that changes to the website occur on a different schedule than code >> releases. We often want to add a new committer's name or a new >> event, and these items are not associated with sw releases. A new website >> release that comes from the develop branch may have commits that >> should not yet be made public. >> >> Are there downsides to separating the website content into its own repo? >>
