Hi David, Looks like you got there in the end. I attempted to give a heads up on that in my first email about the Apache CMS, but all this is complicated. Read this then go back and read my first email on the "Documentation Site" thread and hopefully it makes more sense.
It's very hard to describe it with magically the right level of detail. Here's the way too short version. - https://github.com/apache/tomee-site-generator spits html into here - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/site/trunk/content/ which triggers this Apache CMS job - https://ci.apache.org/builders/tomee-site-staging which takes any html and also converts the mdtext and puts them here - /usr/local/websites/tomee/trunk which is a private svn repo that publishes to here - http://tomee.staging.apache.org which can only get published if a human visits here - https://cms.apache.org/tomee/publish and clicks the button so all html (CMS and otherwise) get published here - http://tomee.apache.org/ What we truly need more than a switch from Jbake to Antora is to get rid of the Apache CMS as that would cut out 4 of those 7 bullets leaving us with: - https://github.com/apache/tomee-site-generator spits html into here - https://github.com/apache/tomee-<some-new-repo> which causes Apache's new infra to publish here - http://tomee.apache.org/ Unfortunately this repo appears to be a honeypot (dead end that can only confuse). It used to be a mirror of svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/site/trunk/content, but it looks like the sync stopped about 2 years ago. All the work of the last 10 days or so has been on replacing the Javadoc and Jbake parts, which have room for improvement and Antora can definitely be part of that improvement, but the big win is ditching the CMS, which technically could happen now. Replacing the CMS probably needs its own email. I mentioned this in the first email as well; the issue you pointed out at the start with the badly formatted page actually wasn't an issue with Jbake. It was one of many legacy CMS files that wasn't fully converted out of the specialized Markdown format. These issues exist in your Antora prototype as well: - https://tomee-preview.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/tomee/8.0/singleton-ejb.html And truthfully our content issues date back to our Confluence-based website days as there's still a very small bit of Confluence wiki markup hanging around: - https://tomee-preview.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/tomee/8.0/local-server.html Every time we make website-tech switch, the content takes a hit and yesterday's content issues get rolled into the newly-created content issues. Though I see our content issues as unrelated to Jbake or Antora and are just plain content issues fixable with either solution, I still support some Antora usage. I do think we need to scale back what we're aiming at with Antora, however. I'll try to post on that, but it takes me hours to write emails and I still have a board report to do and I'm traveling in the morning, so no promises :) -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Feb 16, 2020, at 3:56 PM, David Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I’ve discovered that the svn repo automatically converts .mdtext files to > .html, so my conclusions about how much of tomee-site are currently published > are wrong. I’ll redo my calculations. > > Thanks > David Jencks > >> On Feb 16, 2020, at 8:40 AM, David Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I’d like some verification that my conclusions about content are reasonable…. >> >> The content sources I know about are: >> >> tomee (7-8 docs and examples) >> >> tomee-site-generator (older content) >> >> tomee-site (?) >> >> My understanding is the site is published using svnpubsub, so that svn repo >> reflects what is actually visible on the site. >> >> After doing some set arithmetic I’ve discovered that there is no content on >> the current site necessarily from tomee-site; there’s a lot of overlap in >> content between tomee-site and tomee-site-generator, but nothing from >> tomee-site that is missing from tomee-site-generator is on the website. >> >> Is this reasonable? >> >> Is there anything from tomee-site not currently published that _should_ be >> added to the site? According to my calculations, there are about 445 pages >> in tomee-site that aren’t currently published. >> >> If anyone wants to study the situation, I recommend looking at my git repos >> where all the content I’ve found is similarly organized, and the summary in >> comparison.json >> <https://github.com/djencks/tomee/blob/antora/docs/comparison.json> >> >> calculated using old-new-compare.js >> <https://github.com/djencks/tomee/blob/antora/docs/old-new-compare.js> >> >> There’s also quite a bit of content with no source; as I’ve mentioned before >> I think this is a never-cleaned-up leftover from a previous version of the >> site. >> >> Thanks >> David Jencks >> >> ps. by “necessarily” I mean all the pages in svn that could have come from >> tomee-site, could also have come from tomee-site-generator. I don’t really >> know where they actually came from, although I could probably calculate it. >> >> pps. For nitpickers: there may appear to be two unique files at tomee-site. >> One, security/index, is the same as security/security; I’ve provided a >> redirect. The other, documentation, is some sort of site index or >> navigation page, possibly generated. I heavily edited the version in my >> repo before realizing it was not needed as-is. >
