I think it makes sense to file issues where they are relevant. Issues that are concerned with changes to parts of the website that live in apache/arrow-site (the markdown content, jekyll templates and deploy workflows) should be filled as GH issues in apache/arrow-site. And issues concerning the documentation parts that live in apache/arrow should be filled there.
This would be idiomatic for GH issues imo and we avoid having issues in one repository that will be closed by a PR in another repository needlessly complicating the process for committers and (potential) contributors. On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:36 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > I'm not sure it makes sense to file website issues to a different repo > than documentation issues. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > Le 08/12/2022 à 11:50, Joris Van den Bossche a écrit : > > On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 08:41, Benson Muite <benson_mu...@emailplus.org> > wrote: > >> > >> > >>> For sure the exact workflows will still be further refined while > starting > >>> to use this. And if there are things missing or unclear in the current > >>> practices around how to handle GitHub issues or any other feedback or > >>> ideas, this thread is yours! > >> Maybe helpful to also update website bot: > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow-site > >> > > > > Related to the arrow-site repo: up to now we were also using the Arrow > > JIRA to track website issues. Now we move to GitHub issues, it > > probably makes more sense to use the issues on the arrow-site repo > > itself. So we just enabled that issues can be opened there: > > https://github.com/apache/arrow-site/issues > > > > We will still have to update the merge script in the arrow-site repo > > as well (or discuss about using the merge button). > > > > Joris >
