Hi Dave, Thanks for creating the pulsar-site repo [1]!
We (urf...@apache.org) are working on PIP 87 [2] and want to build and preview the Pulsar website with the new version of Docusarus. As discussed before, our community has been considering bringing website content out of the Pulsar repo. So can we move all the content under the site2 folder to the pulsar-site repo? Thanks! [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IV35SI_F8G8cL-Vuzknc6RTGLK9_edRMpZpnrHvAWNs/edit#heading=h.n6wibg4w77xk On 2021/11/17 23:57:58 Dave Fisher wrote: > I’m going to work through > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/README.md > > I’ll make sure that any changes related to the asf-site branch don’t have > issue with that. > > We may want to be able to publish alternative web designs to a staging sites. > > > On Nov 17, 2021, at 3:02 PM, Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I’ve updated my fork of apache/pulsar > > > > I’m not seeing how to run the workflow "CI - Pulsar Website build”. Any > > ideas? > > > > If not then I’m going to need to test locally and it will take some time to > > ready it. > > > > > >> On Nov 17, 2021, at 1:15 PM, Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Yes, that should work. > >> > >> After that we can go ahead and remove `asf-site` from the main repo, > >> although we need to make it "unprotected" to be able to do so. > > > > Yes once we have moved over to the new then we can ask Infra to take care > > of the branch protection along with deleting it. > > > > When I create the new repository I will copy all of the asf-site branch > > which will take care of transferring the parts of the site not actively > > being built. > > I have created the new repository and populated the asf-site branch: > https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/tree/asf-site > > It publishes to a staging url which you can see here: > https://pulsar.staged.apache.org > > Once we are ready we alter: > https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/blob/asf-site/.asf.yaml > > Per: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/git+-+.asf.yaml+features > > > > > Regards, > > Dave > > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Matteo Merli > >> <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:46 PM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> If we change ORIGIN_REPO[1] to point to a new pulsar-site repos. > >>> Then with the correct .asf.yaml file changes we can remove the asf-site > >>> branch. > >>> I see that the publish is run from this workflow [2] > >>> Let me think about a PR to make the move. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Dave > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/7a34cebca25e6e584e8b758e6bd58c1c4fe8a58e/site2/tools/publish-website.sh#L25 > >>> [2] > >>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/.github/workflows/ci-pulsar-website-build.yaml > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:31 PM, Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/tools/publish-website.sh > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Matteo Merli > >>>> <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:29 PM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Show me where the code is that commits to the asf-site branch. > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I agree with that. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the > >>>>>> original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the > >>>>>> same PR as the code change. That doesn't have to be the case always, > >>>>>> especially for larger multi-PR changes, but it makes it easier to do > >>>>>> quick corrections to the docs. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think the bigger problem here is to get rid of the generated site > >>>>>> HTML stuff from the main pulsar repo. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Matteo Merli > >>>>>> <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:16 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Dave, > >>>>>>> Having a new repo will make it harder for developers to contribute > >>>>>>> documentation. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Usually engineers do it like and do not have time to write docs. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If we ask them to create two PRs only to add, for instance, a new > >>>>>>> configuration option, then it would be somehow a pain. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am not saying that we shouldn't go this way, but it would be kind > >>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>> pain for someone and we need to ear more voices. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Enrico > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Il Mer 17 Nov 2021, 19:28 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the > >>>>>>>> developers who are making documentation changes. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - Sijie > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi - > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There are two efforts happening in the community around website > >>>>>>>>> refresh. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> (1) Docusaurus upgrades. > >>>>>>>>> (2) New web design. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There is an effort to eliminate all the extra commits in the > >>>>>>>>> asf-site > >>>>>>>>> branch of the main repository. In that thread I proposed a new > >>>>>>>>> repository > >>>>>>>>> for the website. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We can then discuss migration and development both on this mailing > >>>>>>>>> list > >>>>>>>>> and as PRs and Issues in that repository. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Do we want to have a PIP process here or can we be less formal? I > >>>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>> that PRs. Issues, and simple commits can be sufficient. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Unless there are objections I will create a new repository - > >>>>>>>>> pulsar-site > >>>>>>>>> on Friday in 72 hours. > >>>>>>>>> ‘ > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>> Dave > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >
