I don't think there is any enforcements from Apache INFRA side. You can use any technology for hosting website and documentation. I do see a lot of projects using Jekyll-like solutions for the website, where they typically have a separate XXX-site git repo and use gitpubsub (which is just a simply git push) for publishing the content.
For DL, originally the website was generated by internally tool called DocBird. When we open sourced DL, we push the generated static content to gh-pages and uses github pages for hosting the content. After we moved to incubator, we changed to use Jekyll to generate the static content and add the generated content on asf-site branch. For me, I don't care what technologies we are using. I'd like a simpler workflow, same/similar as the source code workflow and every changes should be under same/similar review process. Any git-based, github-friendly solution would be preferred here. If we agree on moving, we should call for volunteers to help with this. - Sijie On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> wrote: > It has been some time since you made this proposal, on some ticket. > At the moment I did not make any concrete proposal because I wanted to > study how to make the conversion. > I am in favour of switching to a more popular sokution like jekyll and > maybe markdown language > Using git will be good as well. It will be more integrated. > > I am not an expert I think we need some volunteer toto carry on the > migration. > > On the infra side it would be good to listen to experiences from other > apache projects. On new DL site what technology are you using? > Kafka website has been restyled some month ago, maybe we can take a look > > -- Enrico > > Il sab 3 giu 2017, 02:21 Sijie Guo <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > > I'd like to raise another discussion about moving bookkeeper website from > > CMS to other static generators (e.g. Jekyll, Hugo). > > > > BookKeeper uses Apache CMS for generating the documentation and website > > [1]. The website source code is hosted at a svn repo, which now becomes > > obsolete from > > our current review/workflow. I also heard committers complaining about > the > > steps to get a change out. > > > > I think it is the time to also think of moving the website away from CMS > to > > a more Github friendly solution. > > > > We should consider follows for the new solution: > > > > - have similar review flow as the main source code (github pull > requests). > > - developers can easy to folk and run/validate their changes locally, and > > maybe also easier for the other reviews to verify. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > [1] : > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BOOKKEEPER/ > Building+the+website+and+documentation > > > -- > > > -- Enrico Olivelli >
