No arguments to any points that you made; That is why I was brought up that topic very gently. I respect your view, the technical rationale and comments.
It is just that right now, we have 3 websites including Ozone (Plug: https://hadoop.apache.org/ozone/ ) If it ended up being Hugo, it would be easier for someone like me to contribute to Yetus websites too. I hope at least some of the Hadoop committers has invested time and energy on Hugo already, and we could leverage that too. Thanks Anu On 4/22/19, 11:48 AM, "Allen Wittenauer" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 22, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Anu Engineer <[email protected]> wrote: > > * For those not aware, Allen once told me not to use Hugo – hence that remark ( The ‘why' was apparently lost. :( Getting slightly off-topic: Pre-Hugo: ant + site source repo mvn site + source repo Post-Hugo: hugo + site source repo mvn site + source repo It could have been: mvn site + source repo Hadoop already had a static site generator that was part of it’s core and without major work wasn’t going to go away. There was little value in just swapping out ant (which most of the committers have a small grasp of) for hugo (which maybe 3 people understood) just to get updated graphics and layout when there could have been a major process improvement with updated graphics and layout and without a bunch of people having to learn new stuff.
