What thomas says, makes sense to me. For now, we can just import site into asf-site and make a call on what we check into master down the line?
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:17 PM Vinoth Chandar < mail.vinoth.chan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Guess it does nt clutter source code with docs, js, css etc? > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 7:46 PM nishith agarwal <n3.nas...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I vote for #3 as well. Yes, I'll take up the lead on this. >> BTW, why is creating a separate branch (asf-site) so popular ? I see that >> many projects have done that. >> >> Thanks, >> Nishith >> >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:13 PM Anbu Cheeralan <anc...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > I prefer #3 that will keep the documentation in-sync with the code. >> > >> > On 2019/01/24 21:27:39, Vinoth Chandar <mail.vinoth.chan...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > Hello all, >> > > >> > > Just summarizing how the current project documentation is setup and >> then >> > > use this thread to discuss how we want to proceed. Its based on Jekyll >> > and >> > > markup.To build Hudi docs, you just need to install gem/ruby set and >> spin >> > > up Jekyll. >> > > https://idratherbewriting.com/documentation-theme-jekyll/ has >> > > instructions. >> > > >> > > We have a few options to manage docs. >> > > >> > > 1. Separate repo (away from source code) >> > > 2. Special branch along with code (asf-site branch here >> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-hudi ) >> > > 3. Checked into a top level docs folder on all branches (current >> > approach) >> > > >> > > I vote for #3. I have do #2 on a previous open source project and the >> > code >> > > kept diverging from docs. >> > > >> > > What do you all think? >> > > >> > > Nishith, can you confirm you are taking the lead on this? >> > > >> > > Thanks >> > > Vinoth >> > > >> > >> >
