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

Re: Web site

3 repos makes sense to me. I believe that ASF infra can handle it.

And you have a one-time opportunity to clean out cruft from your source code repo as you move to ASF.


> On Apr 16, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Gian Merlino <gian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx