Tim, with the 2 repo option, the idea is that the source of the website will still reside in the main repo even if we keep the publish contents in a different repo.
@vinodkone > On Jun 1, 2017, at 8:42 PM, Timothy Anderegg <timothy.ander...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Just to chime in, I'm almost done with the changes to the website code that > allows the user to select the version of documentation they wish to see > (haosdent is reviewing the final revisions), and it does depend on using > git to checkout the previous versions of the website via tags, so if we did > isolate the website code to a specific branch or repo, we would also need > to ensure that the tags of commits to the website code stay in sync with > tags of commits to the actual code. This would not be too challenging, but > something to keep in mind. > > Keeping the website code in a separate repository might be easier to manage > from this perspective, since tags are effectively global to a given repo, > so if we kept the website code in a special branch within the main repo, > we'd need something like a tag called "1.3.0" for the main code, and > "website-1.3.0" for the website code, which could be confusing. > >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 8:53 PM Vinod Kone <vinodk...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the analysis Benjamin. Really appreciate it. >> >> You bring up good points esp about size bump for supporting multiple >> versions. >> >> Btw, do the numbers change if publish content is only in a branch ? Guess >> not? >> >> Maybe we can start with a separate git repo and see if it's painful enough >> to merge it into our source repo. >> >> @vinodkone >> >>> On Jun 1, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Benjamin Bannier < >> benjamin.bann...@mesosphere.io> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Vinod, >>> >>>> *Implementation details: * >>>> >>>> We have an option to move to >>>> 1) a standalone git repo (say "mesos-site") which will be mirrored on >>>> github. >>>> 2) just use our "mesos" git repo and publish a "asf-site" branch with >>>> website contents (say at 'site/publish' directory) >>>> >>>> I'm leaning towards 2) because that allows us to deal with single repo >>>> instead of two. >>> >>> I have never updated the website so I cannot comment on the pain >> involved. >>> >>> As a user of the Mesos source git repository I would however like to >> bring up that _all_ of the website’s assets are generated from files >> present in the source repository (at some point in time). The largest >> fraction of the `publish` directory is Doxygen documentation (currently >>> 90% at ~100 MB). We should weigh the effect this would have for developers >> should we add this content to the Mesos source repository. >>> >>> To get a ballpark idea I imported the website’s history into a git >> repository. After the initial import its `.git` directory contained ~100 MB >> which went down to ~30MB after aggressive repository repacking. A fresh >> clone of the Mesos source repository amounts to ~280 MB, so it seems we >> would add at least 10% to the repositories size with little benefit to >> developers. Depending on the implementation, this number would likely >> increase would we e.g., provide version-dependent website content, or >> introduce website asset formats not compressing as nicely with git (e.g., >> generated graphics). >>> >>> I have the feeling keeping this content in a separate repository might >> strike a better balance for developers. >>> >>> >>> Benjamin >>> >>
