[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10295?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15979461#comment-15979461
 ] 

Cassandra Targett commented on SOLR-10295:
------------------------------------------

So, from these links and other browsing/searching around, I've learned a few 
things:

* There are 2 dedicated VMs for building docs, and it seems all that's required 
is adding the right tag to the job ({{git-websites}})
* gitpubsub is described here: https://www.apache.org/dev/project-site.html and 
here:https://www.apache.org/dev/gitpubsub.html
* There is some kind of Jekyll support already integrated into either these VMs 
or the gitpubsub process
* I have no good citation for this, but several issues I've looked at seem to 
imply that you use EITHER the CMS OR gitpubsub, not a combo of both
* As stated in the Jenkins node labels page Steve provided, if you use 
gitpubsub you also have to have all your generated docs in a branch "asf-site", 
which I think is because the generated files are committed back into the 
project and then pushed via gitpubsub to webservers.


> Decide online location for Ref Guide HTML pages
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-10295
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10295
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>          Components: documentation
>            Reporter: Cassandra Targett
>
> One of the biggest decisions we need to make is where to put the new Solr Ref 
> Guide. Confluence at least had the whole web-hosting bits figured out; we 
> have to figure that out on our own.
> An obvious (maybe only to me) choice is to integrate the Ref Guide with the 
> Solr Website. However, due to the size of the Solr Ref Guide (nearly 200 
> pages), I believe trying to publish it solely with existing CMS tools will 
> create problems similar to those described in the Lucene ReleaseTodo when it 
> comes to publishing the Lucene/Solr javadocs (see 
> https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo#Website_.2B-.3D_javadocs).
> A solution exists already, and it's what is done for the javadocs. From the 
> above link:
> {quote}
> The solution: skip committing javadocs to the source tree, then staging, then 
> publishing, and instead commit javadocs directly to the production tree. 
> Ordinarily this would be problematic, because the CMS wants to keep the 
> production tree in sync with the staging tree, so anything it finds in the 
> production tree that's not in the staging tree gets nuked. However, the CMS 
> has a built-in mechanism to allow exceptions to the 
> keep-production-in-sync-with-staging rule: extpaths.txt.
> {quote}
> This solution (for those who don't know already) is to provide a static text 
> file (extpaths.txt) that includes the javadoc paths that should be presented 
> in production, but which won't exist in CMS staging environments. This way, 
> we can publish HTML files directly to production and they will be preserved 
> when the staging-production trees are synced.
> The rest of the process would be quite similar to what is documented in the 
> ReleaseTodo in sections following the link above - use SVN to update the CMS 
> production site and update extpaths.txt properly. We'd do this in the 
> {{solr}} section of the CMS obviously, and not the {{lucene}} section.
> A drawback to this approach is that we won't have a staging area to view the 
> Guide before publication. Files would be generated and go to production 
> directly. We may want to put a process in place to give some additional 
> confidence that things look right first (someone's people.apache.org 
> directory? a pre-pub validation script that tests...something...?), and agree 
> on what we'd be voting on when a vote to release comes up. However, the CMS 
> is pretty much the only option that I can think of...other ideas are welcome 
> if they might work.
> We also need to agree on URL paths that make sense, considering we'll have a 
> new "site" for each major release - something like 
> {{http://lucene.apache.org/solr/ref-guide/6_1}} might work? Other thoughts 
> are welcome on this point also.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to