I think I remember the same thing... but in that case, the content was hosted exclusively in GitHub. This suggestion is that the content is hosted in ASF repos, and it just happens to be mirrored in GitHub, which conveniently does rendering. Ultimately, the value to be gained is:
1) better looking sites, with modern themes and tools for maintenance 2) less burden on INFRA and more ease of projects to update their sites 3) enhance the communication between projects and their users The CNAME features could be used to make sure the URL is "<project>. apache.org" or "projects.apache.org/<project>" or similar, so that it's still clear that it's official ASF content being presented (remember, we'd still control the content in ASF infrastructure, because we control the repos). Another possibility, if we have concerns about GitHub altering our official content (or whatever legal reasons we have) is that ASF could provide a similar/compatible mechanism to render these branches in our infrastructure as an alternative to CMS. That seems like more work for INFRA, though. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Jay Vyas <jayunit100.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I like the idea. Anything to avoid requiring svn to update project sites. > > But... Iirc I started a similar thread before and was told that forwarding > Apache.org to github static site was against the rules ?Maybe I > misinterpreted ... > > > > > On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > All, > > > > Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project > > documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple > > static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now > using > > git, and we mirror projects in GitHub, perhaps we can help the individual > > projects maintain their site's static content by simply committing to a > > gh-pages branch for their project? > > > > Since it's just static content which is still hosted and controlled by > ASF, > > but simply placed in a way that GitHub can render it from the mirrors, I > > don't think there's too many issues of concern, but wasn't sure if > > anybody's put any thought into it. I know it would certainly be easier > for > > some projects than using the existing CMS system with SVN (especially > those > > otherwise developing exclusively with Git). > > > > It might "just work" today, but I haven't tried it. I'd be willing to > work > > with INFRA to help experiment with it, though (especially if we wanted to > > try out the CNAME feature). > > > > More info: https://pages.github.com/ > > > > -- > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >
