Matt Nice. That sounds really good to me.
Thanks Joe On Mar 26, 2015 9:05 PM, "Matt Gilman" <[email protected]> wrote: > So I've been in contact with INFRA [1]. They've explained that we can ditch > CMS entirely. By going this route we will no longer be able to edit the > site online (through the Apache CMS tool) or have the staging capabilities. > We would be committing the site into a svn/git repository and it would be > available immediately (no staging). What this means is that the staging is > going to be done by the person updating the site on the machine they are > building on. Once they are comfortable they would deploy the updates by > committing into the svn/git repository. The mechanics of this commit > haven't been entirely worked out because I didn't know the particulars > regarding CMS if we opted for an external build. I am thinking that it can > be scripted or integrated into the build tool (grunt). > > Additionally, the NiFi maven build could also commit to this svn/git > repository to automate the deployment of our user/admin/etc guides. There > is currently some discussion about how to automate the deployment of > component documentation at build time. Once that is decided, we could > automate their deployment as well. > > Please let me know if there is any opposition to this approach. If I don't > hear anything I am going to continue proceeding down this path. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9291 > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Matt Gilman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I have not begun working on anything generated from the nifi build yet > > (items identified in that ticket). My focus was on the website side of > > things and I am currently in a holding pattern. It seems that the > > referenced ticket is looking for a workaround in the meantime. > > > > Without knowing more, I was thinking that once everything was set up for > > the website's external build we could use maven to commit the specified > > artifacts (maybe something like [1]) into the website's SVN repository > and > > eliminate the need to generate a tarball that someone would manually have > > to upload like we're doing today. > > > > Matt > > > > [1] http://maven.apache.org/scm/maven-scm-plugin/checkin-mojo.html > > > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Matt > >> > >> Rgr that. There are several tickets open which could be part of this > >> work: > >> > >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-445?jql=project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20text%20~%20%22website%22 > >> > >> Which one are you working on? Perhaps we can divide and conquer. > >> There are a lot of updates in v1 that are not yet reflected in V2. > >> Plus in V2 we need an updated image. So perhaps folks will contribute > >> if we can document the needs on the ticket. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Joe > >> > >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Matt Gilman <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > I've sent a couple emails which dev was CC'ed on. Since I wasn't > hearing > >> > anything there, I opened a JIRA ticket with them as well [1]. There > has > >> > been no activity on it yet. I was not aware of any INFRA chatroom. > >> > > >> > It sounds like when configured for an external build, we just need to > >> > commit the website to the SVN repository. It's not clear however, if > >> there > >> > is still a staging phase or if it's immediately published. These are > >> > questions I've asked in emails and in the ticket. The idea is that the > >> > website and the application build would be separate but would commit > to > >> the > >> > same repository so the documentation and the website can be can be > >> updated > >> > and deployed independently. > >> > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9291 > >> > > >> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Matt, Aldrin, > >> >> > >> >> Just specifying you in particular since you were both actively > engaged > >> >> on it. But this is really for everyone: > >> >> > >> >> Can we reengage on the website v2 effort? I believe the last thing I > >> >> saw is that some important ticket or action was held up in INFRA. I > >> >> know that INFRA has a chatroom they are available in. I think > >> >> generally if they fall behind or something falls through the cracks > >> >> they don't mind a ping. > >> >> > >> >> One thing with the change I know was part of the motivation was an > >> >> easier/more direct path to making updates. That part wasn't totally > >> >> clear to me so will be curious to hear more about how that will work. > >> >> As Dan or others have pointed out we need to get a more direct line > >> >> from doc changes to getting them deployed. And ideally we'd have the > >> >> extensions all up there as well. > >> >> > >> >> Anyway - just want to get a view on where this is at. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks > >> >> Joe > >> >> > >> > > > > >
