Thank you, Enrico. I have a co-worker is helping with designing the website with Jekyll now. We will try to share with the community in a couple of days.
- Sijie On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > I read the wiki page and looks great. > Let's do it. > I am not sure about the push via gut works but I will be happy to try. > If we approve this change I volunteer to do the migration if the website > from subversion to git. > Enrico > > Il gio 22 giu 2017, 05:31 Jia Zhai <zhaiji...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > This is great to have a unified documentation place. > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > FYI. I created a BP for this - > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > action?pageId=71012301 > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Enrico Olivelli < > eolive...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Il lun 5 giu 2017, 17:56 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > I don't have a super strong opinion here, but I'm not sure I > > > >> understand > > > >> > > the concern. The textile files are stored in the repo, so any > doc > > > >> changes > > > >> > > should be reviewed and committed as any other code change, no? > > > Granted > > > >> > that > > > >> > > it is in the hands of a committer to push the changes to the web > > > site, > > > >> > > which isn't very friendly. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Merging the website source files to bookkeeper repo is a simple step. > > But > > > > moving the website sources files to bookkeeper repo will break the > > build > > > > procedure (this is how CMS is working), so we need to move the build > > > > procedure along with moving the source files. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > Two concerns: > > > >> > > > > >> > - Website is in the CMS repo, not in bookkeeper's source repo. The > > > >> review > > > >> > process are different between these two repo and a change to > > website, > > > >> docs > > > >> > and source code is fragmented, which makes reviewing a bit > > difficult. > > > >> > - Changes to bookkeeper docs require a manual commit to CMS repo > to > > > >> trigger > > > >> > building the website. It isn't friendly to committers. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > In the case we move out of CMS, where would the site be hosted? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > There are three questions behind this: > > > >> > > > > >> > 1) Where do we host the source files for the website and docs? > > > >> > 2) How do we generate the static content? > > > >> > 3) Where do we host the generated content? > > > >> > > > > >> > My comments: > > > >> > > > > >> > 1) I'd like the source files of website and docs to be along with > > > source > > > >> > codes. If a change requires modifying docs and website, it is very > > > >> > convenient to review all of them in one same pull request. At the > > > >> minimum, > > > >> > I'd like the source files of website and docs are in the same > repo. > > > >> > 2) There are tons of static content generator, for example, > Jekyll, > > > >> Hugo. I > > > >> > want one is friendly to github pages, so developers/commiters can > > > easily > > > >> > use github pages to validate the changes and also show the result > > when > > > >> > asking for reviews. > > > >> > 3) The host generated content can be on any git repo under > asf-site > > > >> branch, > > > >> > using gitpubsub - > > > >> > https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/git_based_websites_available > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> As this post is saying it would be an easy step at least to switch > to > > > git, > > > >> maybe we can just create a directory website and cut and paste the > > > actual > > > >> content. > > > >> We can lose the history, or maybe we could also keep the while > > history, > > > >> but > > > >> in all of my migrations from svn to git I always created a new repo > > and > > > >> not > > > >> merged a svn with a git one. Maybe it would be possible as well. > > > >> > > > >> I would like to at least make this step so that we will have all in > > git > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > - Sijie > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > -Flavio > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On 03 Jun 2017, at 21:42, Enrico Olivelli < > eolive...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Our site is written using Textile, I found this > > > >> > > > https://github.com/jekyll/jekyll-textile-converter maybe the > > > >> switch to > > > >> > > > Jekyll will be easy > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > The other problem will be to switch the cms, maybe just a > > request > > > to > > > >> > > > infra to switch to github pages will be enough > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Enrico > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > 2017-06-03 19:15 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com>: > > > >> > > >> 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 < > > > >> eolive...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > 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 <guosi...@gmail.com> 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 > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- Enrico Olivelli > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Enrico Olivelli >
