See below.

On May 20, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:

> from my experience with maventest
>  
> - the whole generated html goes into 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/production/logging/content/ 
> (actually does not exist: replace logging with maventest and you have 
> maventest)
> To me, the generated html structure is the same with every option.
>  
> - yes, with extpath.txt, the main site content is completely divorced from 
> sub sites: notice that extpath.txt is a CMS publish feature, ie that's the 
> CMS that is generating htlm from sources, even if it's not with its native 
> engine but with an external one
>  
>  
> look at maven-site source updated for CMS build support: 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/site/branches/INFRA-4466/trunk
> notice it is in asf repo, not infra, ie it is in the normal source repo
>  
> The only modifications from classical "mvn site" build are:
> 1. the source directory: <siteDirectory>${basedir}/content</siteDirectory>
> 2. the output directory: <outputDirectory>${site.output}</outputDirectory>, 
> to be set from command line as -Dsite.output=... whatever infra wants
> Then extpath.txt is in content/resources, which will be available from 
> generated html (copied during "mvn site"): 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/site/branches/INFRA-4466/trunk/content/resources/extpaths.txt

The above concerns me a bit.  Log4j2 is a multi-module site.  My plan has 
always been to use site:deploy or site:stage-deploy to get the site to wherever 
it has to go to be processed by svnpubsub. From what you are saying I can't 
tell if that will work or not as I would not modify the output directory for a 
multi-module build as it won't accomplish anything and I'm not sure at all why 
I would want to modify the siteDirectory to build the Log4j2 site.

Ralph


>  
> When source svn is modified, either through CMS web interface, either 
> directly in svn, the CMS builds html and stages content to staging svn area: 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/staging/maventest/trunk/content/
> (notice this in in infra repo)
> (notice this does not contain subsites, look at plugins directory)
> (notice the extpaths.txt file at root)
>  
> Then with the CMS gui, this staging area is promoted to production:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/production/maventest/content/
> This time, subsites are here (like in plugins directory), which were directly 
> imported to the svn production structure in their generated html form.
>  
>  
>  
> To make the same for logging website source in 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/site/branches/experimental-twig-textile/,
>  here are the steps Joe would need:
> - add trunk
> - move src/site to content
> - add resources/extpath.txt
> - add a way to configure output directory from command line
> Then infra will need to integrate build.php as external site build tool (like 
> they did for "mvn site"): I don't know if they have prerequisite installed on 
> the build machine.
>  
> The way I managed to do things was on IRC, to get rapid tests and feedback, 
> because there can be a myriad of little problems to fix. When I'm here, I am 
> connected on #asfinfra, so don't hesitate to ping me if you try to work with 
> infra.
>  
> HTH
>  
> Hervé
>  
> Le dimanche 20 mai 2012 13:49:54 Ralph Goers a écrit :
> I'm still unclear on a bit of the details.
> 
> My understanding is that with svnpubsub we are committing stuff into 
> subversion.  Where would that directory be? Immediately under the main site 
> or somewhere else? In other words, does extpath.txt  provide the ability to 
> divorce the main site content from the sub sites completely?  
> 
> So if we chose option 1 what would the subversion site structure look like?  
> What about with option 2?  We do not want to have to play a bunch of games 
> with a complicated set of svn commands to build each of the components 
> individually.
> 
> Ralph
> On May 20, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> ok, so it's a custom rendering engine
>  
> so I see 2 solutions:
>  
> 1. either infra adds this engine as external, like it did with "mvn site": 
> you'll have to put sources in content, to trigger html generation on each 
> source update, buildbot will build the html, then you'll use the CMS web 
> interface to publish staged content
>  
> 2. either infra simply adds svnpubsub, without any CMS integration, ie any 
> source modification integration nor html build from sources. I don't know if 
> they do that. But that way, you're completely free, you only use svnpubsub: 
> it's up to you to get the tooling to put html content to svn.
>  
> With 1st solution, main site is automatically published at each commit, each 
> component being protected from erase by extpath.txt.
> With 2nd solution, main site is manually published when somebody does it, 
> like components during releases, and you'll have to take care of not removing 
> components content when publishing.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Hervé
>  
> Le dimanche 20 mai 2012 12:53:27 Ralph Goers a écrit :
> Here was what Ivan proposed - 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-general/201205.mbox/ajax/%3CCAKpWnhTiVEe0M54UOFHGXTUOPq3TX2Jd_Z-a7B9H_pfnxQmCDg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> 
> 
> Ralph
> 
> On May 20, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> I'm now subscribed to general@logging
> Thanks Ralph for INFRA-4669: it gives me good information on actual status.
>  
> The main question IMHO for the moment is: how are you planning to generate 
> main site html? Maven, CMS's markdown, another tool?
> Then each component will have its own generation tool, with the only 
> expectation is to output html to svn
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Hervé
>  
> Le dimanche 20 mai 2012 11:58:16 Ralph Goers a écrit :
> If you meant me, of course I'm subscribed to Maven Dev as I'm on the PMC.  
> However, I haven't done any work there in a very long time.  This list would 
> seem to be more appropriate for a logging related discussion.
> 
> 
> To reiterate a bit for Hervé's sake, I've opened 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4699 which is sort of in a state 
> of limbo waiting for us to tell infra what we actually want. We haven't 
> responded because we aren't really sure. So the first piece we need is 
> something to tell infra so that we can actually start doing something.
> 
> Ralph
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to