On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 10:30, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 3:50 AM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I think you're not quite understanding the typical pattern for how > .asf.yaml and the Pelican generation works. The source content lives on the > "main" branch, and when that gets changed, the site is rebuilt and > committed to the "asf-site" branch. When that branch changes, the TLP > servers pick up that change and pulls it down to the server. It also pings > our CDN to flush the cache for that website. > > In other words: this two-branch approach is ASF-standard. > > There are many ASF websites that use the same two-branch pattern, but > different tools to map source to output (eg. Hugo, jekyll, maven, etc) > > Thus: my suggestion that the source content for the site lives on the main > branch (next to all our code) in the "site" subdir, and gets generated to > the "asf-site" branch. Apache STeVe developers shouldn't ever have to > change branches (stick to "main" for both dev and site work).
OK, in which case I agree that it is not a disadvantage for the average developer. AFAICT it makes the site build process more complicated, but that is usually automated. > Cheers, > -g
