FYI: I just take a step to this, but blocked at creating git repository in reporeq.apache.org.
Just filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14765. In that issue I also asked how to serve website with non-main project repository. 2017년 7월 31일 (월) 오후 10:56, Bobby Evans <[email protected]>님이 작성: > +1 > I am fine with moving to git, but I would like it to be a different repo. > Our current repo is at least 160MB already (which is a lot to download) > but nothing compared the the web site that has lots and lots of things > checked in (I estimate it at about 1.5GB on an older version I have locally) > > > - Bobby > > > On Monday, July 31, 2017, 1:58:03 AM CDT, Xin Wang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > +1 for moving to git. - Xin > > > > 2017-07-31 14:54 GMT+08:00 Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>: > > > Bump. I think this is worth to address soon, since some contributors > > occasionally submit patches regarding documentations. > > Personally SVN is no longer feel convenient to use. If we all feel the > > same, let's change then. > > > > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > 2017년 7월 13일 (목) 오전 9:16, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > > > > 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> > > 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) > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Xin
