[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Web site

We have a bit of a hybrid setup today: the docs (a big part of the site)
are in the main "druid" repo. The rest of the site (landing page, news
page, download page) are in a separate website repo. It makes sense to me
because we want to version the docs along with the code, but we _don't_
want to version stuff like the landing page and news as part of the code,
we'd rather they "float" as a separate thing.

The one thing I don't like about how we do the site today is the problem
you mentioned: the built site branch does get large, since it has docs for
every version we've ever released.

Maybe it makes sense to have three repos: one for the sources and
docs/tutorials (which are tied to the sources), one for the "floating"
parts of the site that are untethered to any particular release, and one
for the built site?

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> (Speaking not as a mentor, just someone who has deployed sites on ASF
> infrastructure.)
> What makes most sense to me is to put the web site source in master along
> with the source code, and to put the generated site in a different git repo
> (not just a different branch). It allows you to make a commit that changes
> both source code and the web site.
> And it prevents the source repo from becoming really large (generated web
> sites can be large if you deploy 100M of generated java doc each release).
> You don’t want every contributor to have to download a huge git repo.
> Julian
> > On Apr 16, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Gian Merlino <gian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > A technical note that I also posted in the "migration logistics" thread:
> > the sources for the site are at
> > The branch "asf-git"
> is
> > served on the site I think once we
> > migrate, we could do something similar to what we do on
> >, where sources are in
> "src"
> > and the built site is in "master". Except when using ASF infra, it makes
> > more sense to put the sources in "master" and the built site in
> "asf-git".
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> There has been some back-channel discussion about the web site.
> >>
> >> Druid has a good and successful web site outside of Apache, namely
> >> <>. We cannot start transitioning that site
> >> until the legal IP transfer has completed. In the mean time, we were
> left
> >> without a web site: requests to <
> >>> and <
> >>> would receive an HTTP 404.
> >>
> >> Gian has created a simple web site in Apache that has hyperlinks to
> >> <> and references the current user list
> >> druid-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:druid-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. Links
> >> to outside Apache regarded as a breach of Apache branding policy and are
> >> frowned upon; but as a mentor I totally understand why they are
> necessary:
> >> Druid has a great community, and we must protect that community during
> the
> >> transition to Apache.
> >>
> >> The current web site is good enough for the short-term, but let’s get a
> >> proper branding-compliant web site up and running as soon as we can.
> Let’s
> >> make it one of the “top three” tasks listed in each board report.
> >>
> >> I see [1] that Gian is pushing to move traffic from
> >> druid-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:druid-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> to this
> >> dev list. That effort is most welcome, also.
> >>
> >> Julian
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> L8xpBk/hDCYaIsQCgAJ <
> >> msg/druid-development/q1ip-L8xpBk/hDCYaIsQCgAJ>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx