Ah, that makes more sense, thanks! On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 12:57 AM Vinod Kone <vinodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 > >>> > >> >
