+1, Yes, Dave is right.
> On Jan 21, 2022, at 11:04 AM, Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Liu Yu,
>
>> On Jan 20, 2022, at 6:21 PM, Liu Yu <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> Yes!
>
> We’ll need to create a new ‘main’ branch and ask Infra to make it the default.
>
> Also a new staging branch. From the PR it will be named ‘asf-site-next’
>
> All the best,
> Dave
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
