Is the build-system for flink-china.org identical to flink-web?
On 28.01.2019 12:48, Jark Wu wrote:
Hi all, In the past year, the Chinese community is working on building a Chinese translated Flink website (http://flink.apache.org) and documents ( http://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-master/) in order to help Chinese speaking users. This is http://flink-china.org and it has received a lot of praise since online. In order to follow the Apache Way and grow Apache Flink community, we want to contribute it to Apache Flink. It contains two parts to contribute: (1) the Chinese translated version of the Flink website (2) the Chinese translated version of the Flink documentation. But there are some questions are up to discuss: ## The Address of the translated version I think we can add a Chinese channel on official flink website, such as " https://flink.apache.org/cn/";, which is similar as " http://kylin.apache.org/cn/";. And use " https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-zh-master/"; to put the Chinese translated docs. ## Add a link to the translated version It would be great if we can add links to each other in both Chinese version and English version. For example, we can add a link to the translated website on the sidebar of the Flink website. We can also add a dropdown button for the Chinese document version under the "Pick Docs Version" in Flink document. ## How to contribute the translation in a long term This is a more important problem. Because translation is a huge and long-term work. We need a healthy mechanism to ensure the sustainability of contributions and the quality of translations. I would suggest to put the Chinese version document in flink repo (such as "doc-zh" folder) and update with the master. Once we modify the English doc, we have to update the Chinese doc together, or create a JIRA (contains git commit id refer to the English modification) to do that. This will increase some workload when we update the doc. But this will keep the Chinese doc up to date. We can attract more Chinese contributors to help build the doc. And the modification is small enough and easy to review. Maybe there is a better solution and we can also learn how the other projects do it. Any feedbacks are welcome! Best, Jark Wu
