Most places I've seen the CMS still in use was because of svnpubsub, not necessarily cms.a.o. We use it to commit the output from maven-site-plugin, javadocs, scaladocs, etc. Am I confused here?
On 16 April 2018 at 07:27, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:04 AM Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:26 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > ...FWIW, Jekyll is pretty heavily used across projects.... > > > > Yes, it's good to have a suggested default for this. > > > > OTOH the nice thing about the current setup is that people can use > > whatever tool they want to create content: from emacs^H^H^H^H^H vi to > > Jekyll, JBake, Pelican and many others there's choice depending on > > people's preferences and that's great. > > > > I don't believe this precludes using other tools. One of the things I > learned from how ASF did CMS, its very useful to have a common entry > point. If everything remains wrapped in a checked in build script > (Jenkinsfile, shell script or otherwise) to avoid impacting your build > tool, you're fine using the programming model. > > > > > > -Bertrand > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
