+1 for grown up project with multiple repositories.
+1 Karen's multiple repos
+1 For Dan...
On 2/16/17 17:01, Greg Chase wrote:
The single repository is from our time as an incubating project.
Now we can act like a grown up project 😜
This email encrypted by tiny buttons & fat thumbs, beta voice recognition, and
autocorrect on my iPhone.
On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Anilkumar Gingade <aging...@pivotal.io> wrote:
+1
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Joey McAllister <jmcallis...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
+1 to Karen's suggestion of moving the website to its own repo.
+1 to Dan's suggestion scripting the website build/publishing with a CI
system based on commits.
On Thu, 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?
