Hi Alex,
Jekyll seems to be a tool to convert static content into websites. It seems to be a pluggable system and supports Markdown and Asciidoctor as input. Github uses this to render MD and ADOC files as Github sites. In github they have these orphan branches to provide content for the project website separate from the projects code itself. All Apache Websites seem to be served by one big SVN repository. The projects however can't directly commit to that. So they have this gitpubsub tool to sync the content of some projects site-repo to that one big infra svn repo. The key here seems to be to name the repo branch containing the stuff that should be published "asf-site". Currently we have setup svnpubsub to simply sync the content of our repo to an Infra svn repo. You could write a script that generates the HTML content from markup files with jekyll by explicitly executing the "jekyll" tool and take the HTML, CSS it produces and put that in the "asf-site" repo. You could also use the maven-site-plugin to do exactly the same, just using a different tool. Then you won't have to write a script, but simply do a "mvn site" execution. No matter what tool we would be using, this would have to happen on the ASF "Buildbot". This is some sort of ASF-built build tool and is not Jenkins (I thought buildbot was a different name for Jenkins, but it's not). This Buildbot has the ability to commit to git repos which Jenkins doesn't seem to be able to do). Currently most projects that need some further processing use Buildbot to generate their site and so could we. We can setup the content to be staged immediately without having to stage it first (But it's simply an option that projects can opt in and out to) Github doesn't recommend orphan branches for this, it's just the way their system is setup. I guess multiple repos could have asf-site branches in which they publish parts of the project website. I bet all we have to do, is tell the infra guys how to map which asf-site repos content to what path in the final SVN tree. I think we shouldn't rely on something provided by Github at all. We should rely only on the ASF Infrastructure. I hope this explains things a little better. Chris ________________________________ Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> Gesendet: Montag, 3. Oktober 2016 06:39:14 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] Switch the site repo to GIT? I poked around a bit more, and remain confused. -Looks like folks already use Jekyll at Apache. Is Jekyll different from gitpubsub or a component of it? -Is use of Maven to convert source to html an alternative to using Jekyll or does Maven call Jekyll? -Does gitpubsub also go to a staging server for final approval before being "published"? That's the way our workflow is today and IMO, 99% of the time it is wasteful. I'd like to be able to just push html and xml files straight to the web server. There's gotta be another way to "stage" stuff, maybe just in a different folder. -Is the asf-site branch an orphan branch like GH pages recommends? -Could each of our code repos also have an asf-site branch similar to what GH pages recommends? If so, then maybe we don't have to rely on GH pages and URLs. Maybe we can replicate that sort of workflow at the ASF repo URLs. -Having GH pages URLs if you are viewing our code on GH doesn't bother me. As long as we have a backup plan if GH becomes 'undesirable'. IMO, the priorities are: 1) source control for website so we can rollback changes if needed 2) a way to 'prototype' before going live 3) a way to push html files direct to the server. Whether we use Markdown or AsciiDoc doesn't matter too much to me. Using both is ok too, IMO. -Alex
