On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 07:33, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 4:53 PM Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 28/02/2022 02.36, Greg Stein wrote: > > > It used to be in the CMS, but was removed last August: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/vpphnjqcklswvgy2h57h2bgmclwonoy4 > > > > > > We have not stood up a Pelican-based website (yet). The TLP server has > > been > > > detached from version control, so it displays a stale copy from August. > > > > I've created a new steve-website repository for whatever we decide the > > website should contain. pelican + .asf.yaml is definitely the path of > > least resistance here. > > > > That is a unilateral decision that I disagree with. > > I've already suggested that we put the content in the (future) steve.git > repository, with the Pelican-generated content into the "asf-site" branch > on that repository. There are zero reasons for a second repository. The > fact that other PMCs do that is an anti-pattern used by people that don't > understand version control.
I disagree. Having the website in a branch of the code repo makes it harder to maintain both at the same time. Either need to keep swapping branches (remembering to stash/unstash). Or have two separate local checkouts, in which case there is double the background data: might as well be separate repos. Also, I don't think it plays well with GitHub, AFAIK its search function does not scan all branches. Git branches are fine for versions of the same thing, but not for completely different sources (even if logically related). > Please generate consensus on your new repo, or delete it. I'm not directly involved, but I agree that a separate repo is more suitable. > -g
