On 29 April 2018 at 22:11, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> wrote: > better than a discussion: a demo > > here is the website: > https://asf-attic.github.io/ > > its source: https://github.com/asf-attic/asf-attic.github.io/tree/source > its output: https://github.com/asf-attic/asf-attic.github.io/tree/master > > the only thing that is not included here is the code for the CI to checkout > the output branch and update content after rebuild >
All I see is two disjoint branches. It's not obvious how a user is supposed to update the master from the source. The build.sh script can be used to create a docs/ tree, but then what? > But what is done here with GitHub GitPubSub equivalent can be done exactly the > same way at Apache Software Foundation > > Regards, > > Hervé > > Le dimanche 29 avril 2018, 19:13:43 CEST Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit : >> Le dimanche 29 avril 2018, 14:46:09 CEST sebb a écrit : >> > On 29 April 2018 at 11:33, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > Le dimanche 29 avril 2018, 11:04:44 CEST sebb a écrit : >> > >> On 29 April 2018 at 09:41, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > first, I want to reassure everybody: this is a discussion, to get >> > >> > common >> > >> > knowledge of how things work in other projects then may work in the >> > >> > future for Attic if we decide to do an equivalent setup >> > >> >> > >> +1 >> > >> >> > >> > Le dimanche 29 avril 2018, 07:50:21 CEST sebb a écrit : >> > >> >> On 28 April 2018 at 12:48, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> > On 28 April 2018 at 12:37, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> ... >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> In Git, this would naturally be in a separate branch named >> > >> >> >> "asf-site" >> > >> >> >> > >> >> How would that work for Attic? >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Where would the source files used to generate the site be held? >> > >> > >> > >> > There are multiple ways of doing, and GitHub documented it as clearly >> > >> > as >> > >> > possible [2] (yes, what we do at ASF with GitPubSub is exactly what >> > >> > GitHub calls "GitHub Pages", with marketing bells turned on and >> > >> > technical >> > >> > details on the build solution turned off) >> > >> > >> > >> > The 2 common ways are: >> > >> > 1. publish html from separate branch (which would be by default >> > >> > "asf-site" >> > >> > at ASF, and is "gh-pages" at GitHub) 2. publish html from a >> > >> > subdirectory >> > >> > on master branch (you see Attic current pattern?) >> > >> > >> > >> > I find the first option a lot more clear from a build+scm perspective >> > >> > than >> > >> > the second one. This will avoid the exact same discussion we have >> > >> > currently at Attic with svn to know who commits the generated content >> > >> > (& >> > >> > when as a consequence): - CI after source-only commit? >> > >> > - or user who builds on his machine then commits simultaneously >> > >> > source >> > >> > and >> > >> > generated content? >> > >> > >> > >> > Then looking at ASF gitwcsub configuration [2], I had a look at many >> > >> > ASF >> > >> > projects: the 2 ways are used. I picked Cayenne [3] case to show a >> > >> > case >> > >> > where: >> > >> > - master branch is a source branch, with markup and a build script >> > >> > - asf-site branch is a completely separate branch that contains >> > >> > generated >> > >> > html It uses Maven scm-publish plugin to update asf-git branch with >> > >> > generated html [6] >> > >> > >> > >> > But there is also Freemarker [4], that has a simple README telling >> > >> > "To >> > >> > publish the built site, commit the output into the "asf-site" >> > >> > branch". >> > >> > >> > >> > Or Accumulo [5] which uses Jekyll and has some instructions to >> > >> > publish >> > >> > generated output to asf-site branch with a git-hook that I don't >> > >> > fully >> > >> > understand, but that maybe Attic members will prefer since it seems >> > >> > it's >> > >> > more the common culture here >> > >> > >> > >> > Notice: I'm a Maven guy, I co-wrote the Maven scm-publish plugin used >> > >> > by >> > >> > Cayenne, and I use it in many projects, initially with svn as target >> > >> > source control (in 2012, for svnpubsub & Apache CMS) then with git >> > >> > also, >> > >> > when GitHub pages became popular. But I see that it's not the right >> > >> > choice at Attic because it's not the most common Attic culture. >> > >> >> > >> Attic does not produce source code. >> > >> The only output from its SCM is the website. >> > > >> > > yes, like any other website that I showed: source code here is a markup >> > > language (be it Markdown, xdoc, static content, or anything else) >> > > Attic is really exactly the same >> > > >> > > What makes Attic different is that Attic does not have any other repo >> > > for >> > > "programming" code: that's true, but does not change anything regarding >> > > site> >> > > >> > >> AFAICT, all the above examples have a branch which contains the source >> > >> for building the website. >> > > >> > > yes, I explained I chose them exactly for that reason >> > > >> > > I can show you Airavata site, which is quite simple and did the other >> > > choice: https://github.com/apache/airavata-site >> > > >> > > source is in source, output is in content in the same branch >> > >> > This is equivalent to Attic. >> > >> > > it could have been: source in master branch, content in asf-site branch >> > > which is the most common setup in GitHub pages (= what people nowadays >> > > know a lot) >> > > >> > >> 1) The source is edited. >> > >> 2) Run the build script to create the output in a clean subdirectory >> > >> 3) Copy the subdirectory tree to the asf-site branch >> > >> 4) commit the asf-site branch >> > >> 5) The entire asf-site branch is then published via pubsub. >> > >> >> > >> What Attic does currently is: >> > >> 1) & 2) as above >> > >> 3) commit the changes >> > >> 5) as above >> > >> >> > >> i.e. there is no need to copy the generated output anywhere because it >> > >> is part of the same repo. >> > >> >> > >> This works because svnpubsub is set up to get its source from the >> > >> docs/ subdirectory >> > > >> > > yes, the setup with source and output in the same svn repo or Git branch >> > > makes it simple to checkout, but it mixes 2 types of files (source and >> > > generated) >> > > >> > > separating source and generated in 2 separate locations (separate svn >> > > root >> > > or different branches in the same git repo) makes things more clear, at >> > > the cost of an extra step to check out the generated content then update >> > > with the updated content >> > >> > The workspace still contains both source and generated output in the >> > examples I have seen. >> > >> > I assume it is ignored by SVN/Git so does not get committed or show up >> > as a local change. >> >> I showed you Cayenne, Freemarker and Accumulo that are not like this. >> Here we go back to Freemarker: >> - source: https://github.com/apache/freemarker-site >> - output: https://github.com/apache/freemarker-site/tree/asf-site >> >> > > yes: choose your issue >> > > personally, I prefer the second setup (clear but a little harder to >> > > setup) >> > > I don't like having mixed content in one repo (source and generated >> > > output) >> > > >> > > If everybody understands that these 2 setups a completely equivalent but >> > > really prefer the mixed one (just to avoid a second checkout), I'll let >> > > you >> > > go: I don't have any problem myself, I make a strong difference between >> > > source directory and output directory >> > >> > There's still mixed content in local workspaces unless you generate >> > the output in a separate tree. >> > >> > > But if people start to edit output directory instead of source (like it >> > > is >> > > so easy to do in the mixed content setup), you're at risk >> > >> > It's also possible to checkin the generated output if it's not >> > properly ignored in a 2 branch version. >> > And then wonder why the site does not get updated. >> >> that's why in general there is a .gitignore or svn:ignore that is properly >> configured >> >> > >> I don't know if gitpubsub can take its input from a subdirectory of a >> > >> branch. >> > > >> > > it can: see Airavata site >> > >> > Ah - I see now. >> > >> > The webserver defines the site to be under content/, so the branch can >> > contain other files in parallel directories. >> > >> > >> If not, then we will have to change strategy in order to use Git. >> > >> Otherwise, we have a choice. >> > > >> > > we have a choice >> > >> > Yes. >> > >> > I prefer the status quo, not least because it involves fewer changes >> > (I think only renaming docs/ to content/ if we move to Git). >> > Using multiple repos would involve updating instructions as well. >> >> no, it's not multiple repos but multiple branches of the same repo >> >> > But if the majority want to change I won't object. >> >> since you are the guy who does the buidbot script, that does the commit, >> you'll have to be confident that you can code the multi-branch option >> >> > > Regards, >> > > >> > > Hervé >> > > >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > >> > >> > Hervé >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > [1] >> > >> > https://help.github.com/articles/configuring-a-publishing-source-for-> >> > >> > > >> > gi >> > >> > th >> > >> > ub-pages/ >> > >> > >> > >> > [2] >> > >> > https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-puppet/blob/deployment/modul >> > >> > es >> > >> > /g >> > >> > itwcsub/files/config/gitwcsub.cfg >> > >> > >> > >> > [3] https://github.com/apache/cayenne-website/ >> > >> > >> > >> > [4] https://github.com/apache/freemarker-site >> > >> > >> > >> > [5] https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website >> > >> > >> > >> > [6] >> > >> > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-scm-publish-plugin/various-tip >> > >> > s. >> > >> > ht >> > >> > ml#Git_branch > >
