On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 9:45 AM Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> This setup has some pros:
>
>  * you don't need to navigate to all the website branches to see how
> they are configured,
>

This would only work *iff* the `.asf.yaml` between the branch you are
looking at (e.g., `main`) and the target branch (e.g. `asf-site`) do match.
This is an assumption and an extra maintenance task. We both witnessed
several of such assumptions were unheld while refactoring the existing
Log4j websites. Not just I fixed several `.asf.yaml` files, I even deleted
long forgotten website branches.


>  * you can stage the website for a release with a simple:
>
> git checkout asf-staging
> git reset --hard asf-site
> unzip ...
> git push -f
>

You can do the same in the existing setup too. You just need a `sed`
one-liner to adapt the `.asf.yaml` content:

$ sed -i -e 's/^publish:/staging:/g' -e 's/^  whoami:.+/  :whoami:
asf-staging/g' asf.yaml

Not to mention this is a detail that will be a part of the CI-based release
process. That is, no PMC member will need to recall or type any of these
`git`, `sed`, `unzip`, etc. commands to cut a release.

Given I addressed your "quickly stage a website" concern, are we good?

So maybe we could use a mixed approach:
>
>  * the Github config can only be on a single branch,
>  * the website config is copied to every branch.
>

All in all, I am against assumptions and extra maintenance tasks. You and I
have been working on Log4j full time for several months. This might not be
the case next year anymore. People come and go. I value the simplicity and
ease of maintenance above all in community projects.


> What do you think? See also my e-mail on the site repo/branches mess.
> I doubt most PMC members can tell you where each part of the website
> is coming from.
>

As I explained in my response to your other email, the *"site repo/branches
mess"* statement is not true. Besides a few exceptions I shared, the
*"`asf-{site,staging}`
branch of every repository points to the website"* scheme is clear enough
for everyone, IMO.

Reply via email to