This is what I understood.
Or maybe it was that certain aspects of the CMS don't work on such sites.
It looks as though Commons parent is updateable via CMS but not the components.
On 19 September 2016 at 05:31, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I don’t understand your comment about CMS + svnpubsub. The Loggi
I don’t understand your comment about CMS + svnpubsub. The Logging project has
multiple sub-sites and uses this approach.
Ralph
> On Sep 15, 2016, at 2:01 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> CMS uses SVN but is not the same thing.
>
> I think there are 3 ways to publish a site:
>
> svnpubsub - i.e. generate
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I migrated Log4j to the CMS because Infra basically said it was the only
> supported way to publish an ASF web site. Has that changed?
That's my understanding, yes. OTOH, I'm not Infra.
Jochen
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent th
CMS uses SVN but is not the same thing.
I think there are 3 ways to publish a site:
svnpubsub - i.e. generate and upload site to the appropriate SVN tree
and it will automatically get published
This is what Commons uses currently
CMS + svnpubsub: This uses CMS to maintain the site; after edittin
I migrated Log4j to the CMS because Infra basically said it was the only
supported way to publish an ASF web site. Has that changed? Is there a new,
documented way to use git for that?
Ralph
> On Sep 15, 2016, at 2:42 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Stian
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> Commons is special in that we have many components within the same website,
> but update them separately and generally only at release time.
>
> With git you would always need to check out all of the commons site, e.g.
> lots of javado
Commons is special in that we have many components within the same website,
but update them separately and generally only at release time.
With git you would always need to check out all of the commons site, e.g.
lots of javadoc for each of the components. We might have to fix the site
deploy so i
On 18 August 2016 at 14:02, sebb wrote:
> On 18 August 2016 at 13:49, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 2:44 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> Please note that CMS and Git are orthogonal.
>>>
>>> CMS can be used with either SVN or Git (strictly speaking
>>> svnpubsub/gitpubsub)
>>
>> That may
On 18 August 2016 at 14:22, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:02 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> Buildbot is also used with svnpubsub.
>
> Just guessing: The problem might be, that SVN doesn't allow a
> technical user performing a Commit. At least, this has been a problem
> in the past.
Hu
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:02 PM, sebb wrote:
> Buildbot is also used with svnpubsub.
Just guessing: The problem might be, that SVN doesn't allow a
technical user performing a Commit. At least, this has been a problem
in the past.
Jochen
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
On 18 August 2016 at 13:49, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 2:44 PM, sebb wrote:
>> Please note that CMS and Git are orthogonal.
>>
>> CMS can be used with either SVN or Git (strictly speaking
>> svnpubsub/gitpubsub)
>
> That may be true. However, it doesn't really match with th
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 2:44 PM, sebb wrote:
> Please note that CMS and Git are orthogonal.
>
> CMS can be used with either SVN or Git (strictly speaking svnpubsub/gitpubsub)
That may be true. However, it doesn't really match with the
discussions that I had with Infra. (Which where more along the
Hello Jochen,
Jochen Wiedmann schrieb am Do., 18. Aug. 2016
um 14:19 Uhr:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Benedikt Ritter
> wrote:
>
> > If it's possible we should investigate whether it makes stuff easier for
> us.
>
> The reason why I am driving this: The CMS makes me sick. Whatever I
> in
Please note that CMS and Git are orthogonal.
CMS can be used with either SVN or Git (strictly speaking svnpubsub/gitpubsub)
On 18 August 2016 at 13:19, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>
>> If it's possible we should investigate whether it makes s
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> If it's possible we should investigate whether it makes stuff easier for us.
The reason why I am driving this: The CMS makes me sick. Whatever I
intend to do on the site, it is in the way. That is the main reason,
why the Fileupload site
Jochen Wiedmann schrieb am Do., 18. Aug. 2016
um 13:14 Uhr:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Benedikt Ritter
> wrote:
>
> > I always thought our SVN/CMS workflow is mandatory. Do you know projects
> > who use git for site publication already?
>
> According to Infra, it isn't mandatory. See
>
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> I always thought our SVN/CMS workflow is mandatory. Do you know projects
> who use git for site publication already?
According to Infra, it isn't mandatory. See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-12228. (This is regarding
the Ju
Hi Jochen,
Jochen Wiedmann schrieb am Do., 18. Aug. 2016
um 09:03 Uhr:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to have our site moved away from the CMS to Git. Because, if
> we have done that, we can also have a set of buildjobs created, that
> watch on commits, rebuild the site, and commit the updated site. Right
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
