Maybe we could try out Gitbox, though every committers should join their Github accounts to 'apache' group and enable 2FA.
2017년 7월 13일 (목) 오전 8:38, Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > Did we render webpage with asf-site branch? I didn't recognize it. > > Yes I meant separate git repository, like 'storm-site'. I'm happy I'm not > the only one who feels inconvenient with SVN repo. > Would it better to initiate VOTE for this? > > Thanks, > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > 2017년 7월 13일 (목) 오전 4:30, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > >> We were using git before, then a year ago moved back to subversion to >> implement versioned documentation [1]. >> >> If we do decide to move back to git for this, I would recommend using a >> separate git repository so it doesn’t bloat our main code repository. When >> generating javadoc for a new version, the svn commit to publish the site >> can take around 20 minutes. >> >> -Taylor >> >> > On Jul 12, 2017, at 10:33 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi devs, >> > >> > I think we discussed moving website repository from SVN to GIT from a >> long >> > time ago, and we were OK on that, but action was not taken. >> > >> > Now I can see number of projects (Spark, Kafka, Beam, maybe more) are >> using >> > separate GIT repository for website. >> > Although we may still need to have version specific document (doc >> > directory) from code repository and copy Jekyll build result to website >> > repo, anyone can look at the whole website code and craft pull requests >> to >> > help us. Git would be more convenient for ourselves than SVN (since >> we're >> > maintaining Storm from GIT). >> > >> > So I'd like to propose having a new repository 'storm-website' or >> > 'storm-site' with 'asf-site' as default branch, and move SVN contents to >> > GIT. >> > (Sure we need to ask INFRA for helping Storm website to be rendered >> from a >> > new GIT repo.) >> > >> > What do you think? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >> >>
