> 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
+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
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
+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
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
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
+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
+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
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
+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
11 matches
Mail list logo