Hi Li Li,
Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22778 for further
instructions.
All the best,
Dave
> On Jan 20, 2022, at 10:16 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> It’s a bit late in my evening.
>
> You could access the-asf.slack.com #asfinfra and ask about saving/copying
> these
It’s a bit late in my evening.
You could access the-asf.slack.com #asfinfra and ask about saving/copying these
secrets from pulsar.git to pulsar-site.git.
All the best,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 20, 2022, at 9:14 PM, Leo wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> We need add two
Hi Dave,
We need add two secrets(PULSARBOT_TOKEN and PULSAR_CROWDIN_DOCUSAURUS_API_KEY)
for pulsar-site repo, Here's the code link
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/blob/ffc2e424a7565584e58c1f5a10bb0b1253497f53/.github/workflows/ci-pulsar-website-next-build.yaml#L78-L79
+1, Yes, Dave is right.
> On Jan 21, 2022, at 11:04 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> Hi Liu Yu,
>
>> On Jan 20, 2022, at 6:21 PM, Liu Yu wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Thanks for creating the pulsar-site repo [1]!
>>
>> We (urf...@apache.org) are working on PIP 87 [2] and want to build and
>>
Hi Liu Yu,
> On Jan 20, 2022, at 6:21 PM, Liu Yu wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for creating the pulsar-site repo [1]!
>
> We (urf...@apache.org) are working on PIP 87 [2] and want to build and
> preview the Pulsar website with the new version of Docusarus.
>
> As discussed before, our
Hi Dave,
Thanks for creating the pulsar-site repo [1]!
We (urf...@apache.org) are working on PIP 87 [2] and want to build and preview
the Pulsar website with the new version of Docusarus.
As discussed before, our community has been considering bringing website
content out of the Pulsar repo.
Il Gio 18 Nov 2021, 20:32 Dave Fisher ha scritto:
> I’m making progress here, but I need help getting the pulsarbot GH secret
> into the pulsar-site repository.
>
You have to open a INFRA ticket
Enrico
> If that secret can be shared directly to me then I can fully test before
> adding my PR.
How might the planned move of various components and adaptors out of the main
repository impact the choice to have the docs in the main repository?
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli wrote:
>
> I agree with that.
>
> I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though
I’m making progress here, but I need help getting the pulsarbot GH secret into
the pulsar-site repository.
If that secret can be shared directly to me then I can fully test before adding
my PR.
Thanks,
Dave
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 3:57 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> I’m going to work through
>
I’m going to work through
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/README.md
I’ll make sure that any changes related to the asf-site branch don’t have issue
with that.
We may want to be able to publish alternative web designs to a staging sites.
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 3:02 PM, Dave
I’ve updated my fork of apache/pulsar
I’m not seeing how to run the workflow "CI - Pulsar Website build”. Any ideas?
If not then I’m going to need to test locally and it will take some time to
ready it.
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 1:15 PM, Matteo Merli wrote:
>
> Yes, that should work.
>
> After
Yes, that should work.
After that we can go ahead and remove `asf-site` from the main repo,
although we need to make it "unprotected" to be able to do so.
--
Matteo Merli
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:46 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> If we change ORIGIN_REPO[1] to point to a new pulsar-site repos.
If we change ORIGIN_REPO[1] to point to a new pulsar-site repos.
Then with the correct .asf.yaml file changes we can remove the asf-site branch.
I see that the publish is run from this workflow [2]
Let me think about a PR to make the move.
Regards,
Dave
[1]
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/tools/publish-website.sh
--
Matteo Merli
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:29 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> Show me where the code is that commits to the asf-site branch.
>
> > On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli wrote:
> >
> > I agree with
Show me where the code is that commits to the asf-site branch.
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli wrote:
>
> I agree with that.
>
> I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the
> original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the
> same PR
I agree with that.
I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the
original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the
same PR as the code change. That doesn't have to be the case always,
especially for larger multi-PR changes, but it makes it easier to do
Dave,
Having a new repo will make it harder for developers to contribute
documentation.
Usually engineers do it like and do not have time to write docs.
If we ask them to create two PRs only to add, for instance, a new
configuration option, then it would be somehow a pain.
I am not saying that
I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the
developers who are making documentation changes.
- Sijie
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi -
>
> There are two efforts happening in the community around website refresh.
>
> (1) Docusaurus upgrades.
> (2)
18 matches
Mail list logo
