On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 00:10, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It occurs to me that we *should* create a specific "git" repository > for holding web site contents; having the "asf-site" and "asf-staging" > branches in the component's repository is looking for trouble: It will > be too easy to commit the (generated) web files into "master" > instead of the appropriate branch. [If allowed (even recommended > as per the doc) by INFRA, we should not frown upon the increased > separation of concern (source code vs web site management).] > > "Logging" has one repository for the top-level site and a separate > repository for every component. > IMO, we should do the same (and copy their ".asf.yaml" layout).
You are proposing about 50 new Git repos. > Until we make the git switch for the live top-level site, we would indeed > (as you proposed) not have a "publish" section in any of the ".asf.yaml" > files (in any of the repositories); we'd only use the "staging" section > that will make the site accessible at > https://commons.staged.apache.org The top-level site does NOT have to be switched to Git for this to work. As I already wrote we can mix SVN and Git. But of course the way the website is built needs to be changed to select the individual parts as already described. This means a change to the svnpubsub configuration. > Any objection to creating the following repositories: > commons-site.git -1: it's not needed; we can still use the SVN repo. > commons-math-site.git > ? Fine, but please try (and document) the full process of how to stage the site and how to push the staged site to the asf-site branch. There's no point converting to Git if that process is more involved than the existing process. > Gilles > > > > > Le mer. 28 avr. 2021 à 00:39, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 17:03, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 2021, at 6:57 AM, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Le mar. 27 avr. 2021 à 12:32, sebb <seb...@gmail.com > > > > <mailto:seb...@gmail.com>> a écrit : > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 02:10, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> [...] > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> OK to create the > > > >>>>> commons-site > > > >>>>> "git" repository? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Are you offering to do the work? > > > >>> > > > >>> If the option is still on the table, I could test the > > > >>> website-related feature of ".asf.yaml": > > > >>> > > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/git+-+.asf.yaml+features#git.asf.yamlfeatures-BranchProtection > > > >> > > > >> Please do NOT attempt to use the 'publish' feature. > > > >> > > > >> As I already wrote that will likely mangle the current website and may > > > >> require Infa assistance to untangle. > > > > > > > > I certainly do not want to do that. > > > > > > > >> Removal of a publish entry from .asf.yaml does not undo the checkout, > > > >> and only Infra have direct access to the TLP server. > > > > > > > > Alas, there is a limit to INFRA's magics... ;-) > > > > > > > >> However, you could experiment with the 'staging' feature, and see how > > > >> easy it is to publish the site to the asf-site branch. > > > > > > > > I must be missing something because I don't see what there is > > > > to do then, apart from > > > > $ git checkout asf-site > > > > $ mvn site site:stage > > > > > > > > And, just as now, the functional (except perhaps for the links to > > > > the top-level Commons site) static site will be under > > > > target/staging > > > > > > > > > > ASF git-based web sites use two branches; asf-site for the live site and > > > asf-staging for the > > > taged site. So when Sebb is telling you to work on the staging site only > > > he means commit > > > only to the asf-staging branch. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Just don't attempt to publish that branch. > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> BTW, I have found out that it is possible to combine site content > > > >>>> from > > > >>>> SVN and Git repos in order to create the website checkout. > > > >>>> So there is no need to convert to Git. > > > >>> > > > >>> Is it the solution straightforwardly applicable to the current > > > >>> setup of the Commons web site? [So that ".asf.yaml" should > > > >>> not be used for the projects' sites.] > > > >> > > > >> AFAICT, yes. > > > >> > > > >> The website is currently taken from: > > > >> > > > >> https://svn-master.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/production/commons > > > >> > > > >> This is done as a single checkout. > > > >> > > > >> This could be changed to take the top-level website from its own > > > >> location, and the dormant, sandbox and proper trees could be checked > > > >> out into the relevant subdirectories. > > > >> > > > >> This should be fine so long as the top-level site does not have any > > > >> files in those 3 subdirectories. > > > >> > > > >> For an example of this, go to > > > >> https://infra-reports.apache.org/site-source/ > > > >> and enter 'ant.apache.org' in the search box 'Find a web site' > > > >> > > > >> You should see 4 entries at different levels derived from different > > > >> SVN URLs. > > > >> Note that in each case the parent SVN tree does not have an entry for > > > >> its children. > > > >> E.g. The SVN location for ant.apache.org does not have a directory > > > >> easyant or ivy. > > > >> > > > >> Note that .asf.yaml does not apply to SVN checkouts. > > > >> > > > >> If we were to determine that Git was better for the proper websites, > > > > > > > > How to do that without a playground for testing? > > > > > > > > > You create a repo that only has an .asf.yaml in the asf-staging branch. > > > Until you > > > merge the asf-staging branch to the asf-site branch nothing will be live > > > from it as it > > > will not have an .asf.yaml file. > > > > Actually I *am* suggesting to try merging to the asf-site branch. > > That is needed to explore the full process needed to move to Git > > (apart from final publication) > > > > Of course it is vital that the .asf.yaml file does *not* have a > > publish entry yet. > > > > If Commons does decide that Git is the way to go, at some point the > > asf.yaml file publish entry can be added. > > This will have to be carefully co-ordinated with the removal of the > > existing SVN site to avoid mangling the site. > > > > > > > > Ralph > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
