Great points! Docker definitely could be useful to provide a standard Jekyll, ruby build environment. Something, that Nishith himself had trouble with.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 7:09 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > A pull request is the common way to propose changes in other projects, so > that's good. > > One of the things you will want to work on going forward are contributor > guidelines that explain this, among other things. > > Other suggestions (that can all be taken up as follow-up, perhaps worth > creating a JIRAs): > - Source file should have license headers > - Take a look at other incubator and top level projects for web site > commonalities such as community / contributing sections > - Consider adding a README to the web site sources folder and a build > script that shields developers from error prone manual steps > - Docker is a good way to avoid having to install pieces on the host OS > (example: > > https://flink.apache.org/improve-website.html#update-or-extend-the-documentation > ) > - Maybe in the future you want to separate web site sources from > documentation (since documentation is usually specific to versions) > > Thomas > > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 11:05 PM nishith agarwal <n3.nas...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I've altered the documentation and created a PR against the "asf-site" > > branch due to absence of a master branch (instead of pushing to a branch > > directly). In the comments, I've tried to explain the changes I made. In > > summary, most of our packages, metadata for datasets, admin client and > more > > are named with "hoodie". For now, I've just made some cosmetic name > changes > > in the docs from "hoodie" -> "hudi" since performing a widespread rename > > does not make sense. > > My guess is we can have an initial version of the site ready with such > > changes, iterate on it and come up with a plan as we migrate the codebase > > but I'd love to hear your thoughts around this. > > > > Thanks, > > Nishith > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:38 PM nishith agarwal <n3.nas...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Yes, I'll get to it later tonight. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Nishith > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:04 PM Vinoth Chandar <vin...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Nishith, are you working on the site? Just wanted to confirm and see > if > > >> you > > >> need more help from one of us. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:21 PM Vinoth Chandar < > > >> mail.vinoth.chan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > 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 > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >
