Sent from my iPad
> On 5 May 2018, at 06:25, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: > > Hi, > > I took time to read the whole discussions from april and understand what was > the common objective, and what were solutions envisioned and discussed and > partly done and partly with consensus yet to be found. > > AFAIK, we have a common objective: simplifying attic site maintenance. Correct > > The simplification ideas and solutions are: > - retired site update: > banners solution in place with initial site http://oltu.apache.org/ > IIUC, there are still some improvements that could eventually be done (for > .eu > and .us urls), but it works quite well. > This idea is the most critical, since it was really a pain for each new > project move to Attic Correct > > - have fewer files to edit: > how many files precisely to edit now? You have to divide that in 2: - Files to edit when retiring a project (2, but the whole site is added in the commit) - When changing the site > evaluation has been that this require changing templating solution (too hard > or no knowledge to add such feature to current Ant/Anakia build), and format > of data > this is where we have 2 competing solutions.. we'll discuss this later not only, but it is the main difference. > > - avoiding build tools use on editor's computer: > buildbot job added that builds and publish when source is updated. > Manual local build and commit can still be done > AFAIK, this solution works well correct or use JS as in my solution ( I believe buildbot is better, but added it for completeness) > > - web browser only edit: > Idea on this would be to use GitHub online editing: given ASF has GitBox > service in place, and with previous automated build and publish on source > update, this seems feasible. correct > > This Git/GitBox/GitHub solution could bring us other advantages: branches > management and PR review would ease tests and discussion before deciding to > merge to trunk/master in theory correct, but during my time as chair I would have been discussing with myself, so it is overkill as a demand. Apart from that how would you test a PR that changes site layout? > > > IMHO, working on GitBox/GitHub solution would ease future work and discussion > on the "have fewer files to edit" ideas. > And I know that it is feasible without changing many things on the current > situation. > > WDYT about prioritizing this Git/GitBox/GitHub solution? We had a community agreement, that I should ask for it, when somebody went ahead without consensus and created attic-test (I suppose as an alternative to using branches). I would not not like to end up with 2 git repo’s which means we need to reach consensus (again) on how a git implementation should be. Thanks for a good summary, which is the reason I have taken time to answer you, as you surely also have read, this havoc have caused another (more important) problem for the Attic, a new chair need to be found and discussions are not really progressing. rgds jan i > > Regards, > > Hervé
