Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

[Anthony Baker]

> On Feb 17, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Karen Miller  wrote:
> 
> Seems like everyone is in favor of the separate repo.  I'll request one
> early next week.
> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2507 to handle the
> first parts
> of the task of getting the new repo up and running.
> 

The new repo is up and running (thanks Karen!).  Please review the contents and 
give a shout if you have a suggestion or something is awry.  INFRA is currently 
setting up travis-ci integration 
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13562).  This will only do rat 
checks at this point.

I think we are ready to switch the geode website publishing over to the 
geode-site repo.  Barring objections, I’ll file an INFRA ticket for this in a 
day or so.

Still to do:  
- update the README.md in the project root.
- can we remove build.sh / run.sh?  These seem fairly useless

Anthony

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

[William Markito Oliveira]

+1

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Karen Miller  wrote:

> Seems like everyone is in favor of the separate repo.  I'll request one
> early next week.
> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2507 to handle the
> first parts
> of the task of getting the new repo up and running.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Kirk Lund  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Joey McAllister  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to Karen's suggestion of moving the website to its own repo.
> > >
> > > +1 to Dan's suggestion scripting the website build/publishing with a CI
> > > system based on commits.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:38 PM Dan Smith  wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is
> supposed
> > > to
> > > > include docs that are generated from the last release, but the site
> > > > instructions say the site should be generated from develop. A
> separate
> > > repo
> > > > with a single branch will probably reduce confusion.
> > > >
> > > > We also need to script the website building and publishing, and
> ideally
> > > > have the publishing done by a CI system based on commits. It looks
> like
> > > > some other projects are talking about doing this with jenkins
> jenkins -
> > > see
> > > > INFRA-10722 for example.
> > > >
> > > > -Dan
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think that the website content that is currently in
> > geode/geode-site
> > > > > ought to be moved to its own repository.  The driving reason for
> this
> > > is
> > > > > that changes to the website occur on a different schedule than code
> > > > > releases.  We often want to add a new committer's name or a new
> > > > > event, and these items are not associated with sw releases. A new
> > > website
> > > > > release that comes from the develop branch may have commits that
> > > > > should not yet be made public.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are there downsides to separating the website content into its own
> > > repo?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
~/William

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

[Karen Miller]

Seems like everyone is in favor of the separate repo.  I'll request one
early next week.
I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2507 to handle the
first parts
of the task of getting the new repo up and running.


On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Kirk Lund  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Joey McAllister 
> wrote:
>
> > +1 to Karen's suggestion of moving the website to its own repo.
> >
> > +1 to Dan's suggestion scripting the website build/publishing with a CI
> > system based on commits.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:38 PM Dan Smith  wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed
> > to
> > > include docs that are generated from the last release, but the site
> > > instructions say the site should be generated from develop. A separate
> > repo
> > > with a single branch will probably reduce confusion.
> > >
> > > We also need to script the website building and publishing, and ideally
> > > have the publishing done by a CI system based on commits. It looks like
> > > some other projects are talking about doing this with jenkins jenkins -
> > see
> > > INFRA-10722 for example.
> > >
> > > -Dan
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think that the website content that is currently in
> geode/geode-site
> > > > ought to be moved to its own repository.  The driving reason for this
> > is
> > > > that changes to the website occur on a different schedule than code
> > > > releases.  We often want to add a new committer's name or a new
> > > > event, and these items are not associated with sw releases. A new
> > website
> > > > release that comes from the develop branch may have commits that
> > > > should not yet be made public.
> > > >
> > > > Are there downsides to separating the website content into its own
> > repo?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

[Kirk Lund]

+1

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Joey McAllister 
wrote:

> +1 to Karen's suggestion of moving the website to its own repo.
>
> +1 to Dan's suggestion scripting the website build/publishing with a CI
> system based on commits.
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:38 PM Dan Smith  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed
> to
> > include docs that are generated from the last release, but the site
> > instructions say the site should be generated from develop. A separate
> repo
> > with a single branch will probably reduce confusion.
> >
> > We also need to script the website building and publishing, and ideally
> > have the publishing done by a CI system based on commits. It looks like
> > some other projects are talking about doing this with jenkins jenkins -
> see
> > INFRA-10722 for example.
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that the website content that is currently in geode/geode-site
> > > ought to be moved to its own repository.  The driving reason for this
> is
> > > that changes to the website occur on a different schedule than code
> > > releases.  We often want to add a new committer's name or a new
> > > event, and these items are not associated with sw releases. A new
> website
> > > release that comes from the develop branch may have commits that
> > > should not yet be made public.
> > >
> > > Are there downsides to separating the website content into its own
> repo?
> > >
> >
>

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

[Udo Kohlmeyer]

+1 for grown up project with multiple repositories.

+1 Karen's multiple repos

+1 For Dan...


On 2/16/17 17:01, Greg Chase wrote:

The single repository is from our time as an incubating project.

Now we can act like a grown up project 

This email encrypted by tiny buttons & fat thumbs, beta voice recognition, and 
autocorrect on my iPhone.


On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Anilkumar Gingade  wrote:

+1

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Joey McAllister 
wrote:


+1 to Karen's suggestion of moving the website to its own repo.

+1 to Dan's suggestion scripting the website build/publishing with a CI
system based on commits.


On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:38 PM Dan Smith  wrote:

+1

I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed

to

include docs that are generated from the last release, but the site
instructions say the site should be generated from develop. A separate

repo

with a single branch will probably reduce confusion.

We also need to script the website building and publishing, and ideally
have the publishing done by a CI system based on commits. It looks like
some other projects are talking about doing this with jenkins jenkins -

see

INFRA-10722 for example.

-Dan

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller 

wrote:

I think that the website content that is currently in geode/geode-site
ought to be moved to its own repository.  The driving reason for this

is

that changes to the website occur on a different schedule than code
releases.  We often want to add a new committer's name or a new
event, and these items are not associated with sw releases. A new

website

release that comes from the develop branch may have commits that
should not yet be made public.

Are there downsides to separating the website content into its own

repo?

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

[Anthony Baker]

Another advantage:  since the geode-site/ directory would not be included in 
the geode source release, we can move a number of the javascript and font 
references out of the geode LICENSE.

Anthony

> On Feb 16, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Anthony Baker  wrote:
> 
> Yes, please.  Let’s call the repo geode-site.  Use two branches:  master and 
> asf-site.  If we can auto-build and push to asf-site that would be awesome.
> 
> Anthony
> 
>> On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:38 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed to
>> include docs that are generated from the last release, but the site
>> instructions say the site should be generated from develop. A separate repo
>> with a single branch will probably reduce confusion.
>> 
>> We also need to script the website building and publishing, and ideally
>> have the publishing done by a CI system based on commits. It looks like
>> some other projects are talking about doing this with jenkins jenkins - see
>> INFRA-10722 for example.
>> 
>> -Dan
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller  wrote:
>> 
>>> I think that the website content that is currently in geode/geode-site
>>> ought to be moved to its own repository.  The driving reason for this is
>>> that changes to the website occur on a different schedule than code
>>> releases.  We often want to add a new committer's name or a new
>>> event, and these items are not associated with sw releases. A new website
>>> release that comes from the develop branch may have commits that
>>> should not yet be made public.
>>> 
>>> Are there downsides to separating the website content into its own repo?
>>> 
> 

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

[Anthony Baker]

Yes, please.  Let’s call the repo geode-site.  Use two branches:  master and 
asf-site.  If we can auto-build and push to asf-site that would be awesome.

Anthony

> On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:38 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed to
> include docs that are generated from the last release, but the site
> instructions say the site should be generated from develop. A separate repo
> with a single branch will probably reduce confusion.
> 
> We also need to script the website building and publishing, and ideally
> have the publishing done by a CI system based on commits. It looks like
> some other projects are talking about doing this with jenkins jenkins - see
> INFRA-10722 for example.
> 
> -Dan
> 
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller  wrote:
> 
>> I think that the website content that is currently in geode/geode-site
>> ought to be moved to its own repository.  The driving reason for this is
>> that changes to the website occur on a different schedule than code
>> releases.  We often want to add a new committer's name or a new
>> event, and these items are not associated with sw releases. A new website
>> release that comes from the develop branch may have commits that
>> should not yet be made public.
>> 
>> Are there downsides to separating the website content into its own repo?
>> 

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

[Anilkumar Gingade]

+1

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Joey McAllister 
wrote:

> +1 to Karen's suggestion of moving the website to its own repo.
>
> +1 to Dan's suggestion scripting the website build/publishing with a CI
> system based on commits.
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:38 PM Dan Smith  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed
> to
> > include docs that are generated from the last release, but the site
> > instructions say the site should be generated from develop. A separate
> repo
> > with a single branch will probably reduce confusion.
> >
> > We also need to script the website building and publishing, and ideally
> > have the publishing done by a CI system based on commits. It looks like
> > some other projects are talking about doing this with jenkins jenkins -
> see
> > INFRA-10722 for example.
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that the website content that is currently in geode/geode-site
> > > ought to be moved to its own repository.  The driving reason for this
> is
> > > that changes to the website occur on a different schedule than code
> > > releases.  We often want to add a new committer's name or a new
> > > event, and these items are not associated with sw releases. A new
> website
> > > release that comes from the develop branch may have commits that
> > > should not yet be made public.
> > >
> > > Are there downsides to separating the website content into its own
> repo?
> > >
> >
>

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

[Joey McAllister]

+1 to Karen's suggestion of moving the website to its own repo.

+1 to Dan's suggestion scripting the website build/publishing with a CI
system based on commits.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:38 PM Dan Smith  wrote:

> +1
>
> I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed to
> include docs that are generated from the last release, but the site
> instructions say the site should be generated from develop. A separate repo
> with a single branch will probably reduce confusion.
>
> We also need to script the website building and publishing, and ideally
> have the publishing done by a CI system based on commits. It looks like
> some other projects are talking about doing this with jenkins jenkins - see
> INFRA-10722 for example.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller  wrote:
>
> > I think that the website content that is currently in geode/geode-site
> > ought to be moved to its own repository.  The driving reason for this is
> > that changes to the website occur on a different schedule than code
> > releases.  We often want to add a new committer's name or a new
> > event, and these items are not associated with sw releases. A new website
> > release that comes from the develop branch may have commits that
> > should not yet be made public.
> >
> > Are there downsides to separating the website content into its own repo?
> >
>

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

[Dave Barnes]

The current mechanism for publishing the website is quite convoluted. As
you point out, the software and the website are only loosely coupled. I see
only good outcomes for allowing the repos to reflect that reality.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller  wrote:

> I think that the website content that is currently in geode/geode-site
> ought to be moved to its own repository.  The driving reason for this is
> that changes to the website occur on a different schedule than code
> releases.  We often want to add a new committer's name or a new
> event, and these items are not associated with sw releases. A new website
> release that comes from the develop branch may have commits that
> should not yet be made public.
>
> Are there downsides to separating the website content into its own repo?
>

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

[Dan Smith]

+1

I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed to
include docs that are generated from the last release, but the site
instructions say the site should be generated from develop. A separate repo
with a single branch will probably reduce confusion.

We also need to script the website building and publishing, and ideally
have the publishing done by a CI system based on commits. It looks like
some other projects are talking about doing this with jenkins jenkins - see
INFRA-10722 for example.

-Dan

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller  wrote:

> I think that the website content that is currently in geode/geode-site
> ought to be moved to its own repository.  The driving reason for this is
> that changes to the website occur on a different schedule than code
> releases.  We often want to add a new committer's name or a new
> event, and these items are not associated with sw releases. A new website
> release that comes from the develop branch may have commits that
> should not yet be made public.
>
> Are there downsides to separating the website content into its own repo?
>