On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 12:49, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 12:00, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Le jeu. 29 avr. 2021 à 01:45, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > > 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. > > > > Only because it seems that the functionality was intended that way. > > Not as far as I know; many repos have asf-site and asf-staging > branches alongside the code. > > > Also: Having independent repositories seems the safest path for > > experimenting mix and match; if the latter works, not all components > > will use the new system, or migration can be done gradually. > > It does not matter whether the branches are in the same or a different > repo. >
IIUC it does for anyone using 'git clone ...' to get the source code. They will be subjected to a download of all the site history. This may become significant over time relative to the size of the source.
