Hi, We have raised a Apache Infra ticket for migrating site docs from svn -> git . Currently, the gitwcsub client only supports using the "asf-site" branch for site docs. Infra team is suggesting to create new git repo for site docs.
Infra ticket here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143 Possible Options: 1. Maintain code and docs in same repo, but on different branches (trunk and asf-site) 2. Create a new git repo for docs and integrate with gitwcsub. I vote for second option. Kumar On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Edward Ribeiro <edward.ribe...@gmail.com> wrote: > FYI, I created a tiny trivial patch to address a typo in the web site > (KAFKA-2418), so maybe you can review it and eventually commit before > moving to github. ;) > > Cheers, > Eddie > Em 12/08/2015 06:01, "Ismael Juma" <ism...@juma.me.uk> escreveu: > > > Hi Gwen, > > > > I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website > > documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the move > > so I pinged him in the issue. > > > > Best, > > Ismael > > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :) > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding > > +1, > > > 3 > > > > non-binding +1 and no -1. > > > > > > > > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking > for a > > > > volunteer? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> +1 on same repo. > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro < > > > >> edward.ribe...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :) > > > >> > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <n...@confluent.io> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both > in > > > >> sync. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke < > ghe...@cloudera.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more > > > >> accurate > > > >> > > they > > > >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a > new > > > >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small > > > >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur > > > without > > > >> a > > > >> > new > > > >> > > > release? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang < > > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of > > > code > > > >> / > > > >> > doc > > > >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Guozhang > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira < > > g...@confluent.io > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier > benefits. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples > > documentation > > > >> > > changes > > > >> > > > > from > > > >> > > > > > website changes: > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the > > > >> > documentation > > > >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of > the > > > >> > > > > documentation, > > > >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike > current > > > SVN > > > >> > > where > > > >> > > > we > > > >> > > > > > have directories per version) > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new > > > release > > > >> to > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > > > > website > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Gwen > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma < > > > ism...@juma.me.uk > > > >> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving > > the > > > >> > > website > > > >> > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > Git: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would > like > > > to > > > >> > see a > > > >> > > > bit > > > >> > > > > > of > > > >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part > of > > > the > > > >> > same > > > >> > > > repo > > > >> > > > > > as > > > >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo: > > > >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which > means: > > > >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant > > code > > > >> > changes > > > >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same > > time > > > >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes > > > >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo: > > > >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller > > > repo, > > > >> > less > > > >> > > > > > > verification needed) > > > >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history > > > >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best, > > > >> > > > > > > Ismael > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal < > > > >> > > asmbans...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn > to > > > git > > > >> > came > > > >> > > > up. > > > >> > > > > > > That > > > >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have > > > >> contributed > > > >> > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on > > > github > > > >> > could > > > >> > > > be > > > >> > > > > > > > useful. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it > should > > > be a > > > >> > > > separate > > > >> > > > > > > repo. > > > >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I can try that out. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > -- > > > >> > > > > -- Guozhang > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > -- > > > >> > > > Grant Henke > > > >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera > > > >> > > > gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | > > > >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > -- > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > >> > > Neha > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> Ashish > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
