> On Apr 29, 2021, at 4:49 AM, 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.
While that works it means that you have “code” branches and “web site” branches
in the
same git repo. While Git certainly won’t care it will likely confuse new
contributors for 10 minutes.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
