Sent from my iPad
> On 23 Apr 2018, at 00:46, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 22 April 2018 at 15:53, Henk P. Penning <penn...@uu.nl> wrote: >>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, j...@apache.org wrote: >>> >>> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 15:53:52 +0200 >>> From: j...@apache.org >>> To: general@attic.apache.org >>> Subject: New maintenance. >> >> >>> Based on site-json I propose the following changes: >>> >>> Change docs/scripts/attic.js to project.json (kept as pure json outside >>> docs). >> >> >> Also, I /really/ would like to have the .json available for 'others', >> so inside docs/ please. > > Fine. > > However the source of the data does not have to be in docs so long as > there is a generated copy in docs. > > There may be info in the source that is not really needed externally > (so it can be omitted from the docs copy). > For example 'apply-banner' does not really seem to be relevant to 3rd parties. > > It is easy enough to create a single data file in a suitable format > for external use as part of the site generation. > >> Let's call the .json 'attic.json' ; >> for 'others' the .json describes what PMC attic has done. > > OK. > >>> Remove xdocs. >> >> >> Ok. >> >>> Allow a build job to monitor for svn changes and if any active a >>> generation script. >>> >>> The generation script does the following: >>> - generate a sidebar.inc which is included (physically in all files) >>> - Generate a page pr. project in projects, based on a 1 template >>> “project.md” or similar >> >> >> Eh, no ; if the build scripts creates the attic.js (from a template >> and 'attic.json') we are done ; this is much closer to what we have >> now. > > What we have now is one XML file per project. > I am suggesting one Markdown file per project instead. > > This would contain a header with the data values, followed by optional > body text. > The data would be processed against a template. and that is exactly where our opinion split, see my earlier mail. I am vey much against the idea of multiple files. > >>> - Generate a flagged directory (if field “flag” is present in the JSON >>> object”) >> >> >> perhaps we should go with 'retired' (as opposed to 'flagged/') >> after all ; this makes it easier to fix the httpd config as >> a separate issue ; we'll rm -rf flagged/ later. > > I think the name should relate to the function. > 'retired' is too general. > Why not 'add-banner' ? ok with me. > >>> Ps. I can help to change attic.js, but I am afraid the generate script is >>> for someone else to write. >> >> >> Can we please go for a simple Makefile ? So we can simply do : >> >> -- svn up >> -- edit json >> -- make >> -- commit >> >> >> Sebb, >> >> I am totally ignorant re: build stuff ; can the build stuff run a make ? > > The buildbot can run any shell command, so it could run make. > > But a simple shell script is likely to be sufficient. > I don't see any need to use make. agreed rgds jan i > >> Groeten, >> >> HPP >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ _ >> Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_ >> Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \ >> Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/ >> http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penn...@uu.nl \_/
