Hi, The contents of asf-site are automatically *generated from master and > committed* > by a GitHub Action > < > https://github.com/apache/ozone-site/blob/master/.github/workflows/regenerate.yml > >. > From there, existing ASF services read the .asf.yml > <https://github.com/apache/ozone-site/blob/asf-site/.asf.yaml> file in the > asf-site branch and copy the built contents from that branch to wherever > the ASF is hosting the static sites for projects.
Does changing default to master still need some generation and commit to master? If the above has no impact, I'm +1 for this change. On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 9:47 PM Zita Dombi <zitado...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks Ethan for bringing this up, I'm +1 for this change. > > Zita > > Abhishek Pal <pal.abhishek03012...@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2024. > febr. 10., Szo, 22:43): > > > Hi Ethan, > > Thanks for taking up this initiative. > > While this is not a problem for existing committers, I do believe people > > who are new to the repo might have some confusion with the current > > branching and how GitHub actions builds the site. > > I give a +1 vote for this change. > > Though we are eventually shifting to a new website, that might take time, > > and in the meantime this change will help reduce confusion for any new > > contributors as well as address the templating issues. > > > > On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 at 05:44, Ethan Rose <er...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Ozone devs, > > > > > > I’d like to start a vote thread to change the default branch in the > > > apache/ozone-site <https://github.com/apache/ozone-site> repo from > > > asf-site > > > to master. Changing the default branch requires an Infra ticket and > > mailing > > > thread according to the asfyaml README > > > < > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml/blob/main/README.md#default-branch > > > >. > > > I’ll start with some questions you may have when deciding to vote: > > > > > > *Does this have anything to do with the new website development that is > > > happening on the feature branch HDDS-9225-website-v2 > > > <https://github.com/apache/ozone-site/tree/HDDS-9225-website-v2>?* > > > > > > No, this has nothing to do with the new website. The change would be > > > effective for the existing website only since it concerns the asf-site > > and > > > master branches, neither of which the new website uses right now. > > > > > > *What is the difference between asf-site and master?* > > > > > > The master branch contains the code that we modify and commit to change > > the > > > website. The asf-site branch contains the already built website. The > > > contents of asf-site are automatically generated from master and > > committed > > > by a GitHub Action > > > < > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ozone-site/blob/master/.github/workflows/regenerate.yml > > > >. > > > From there, existing ASF services read the .asf.yml > > > <https://github.com/apache/ozone-site/blob/asf-site/.asf.yaml> file in > > the > > > asf-site branch and copy the built contents from that branch to > wherever > > > the ASF is hosting the static sites for projects. > > > > > > *Why should we change the default branch from asf-site to master?* > > > > > > 1. (My primary motivation) Pull request templates only work if they > > > are committed > > > to the default branch > > > < > > > > > > https://docs.github.com/en/communities/using-templates-to-encourage-useful-issues-and-pull-requests/about-issue-and-pull-request-templates#pull-request-templates > > > > > > > . > > > Committing the PR template from HDDS-10267 > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-10267> to the asf-site > > > branch would be clunky and difficult to modify. It is better to > leave > > > that > > > branch for auto generated content only. That PR template currently > > does > > > not > > > work since it is not on the asf-site (current default) branch. > > > 2. It’s confusing for users who go to the site on GitHub or clone > the > > > repo and expect to see the code they should modify to change the > site. > > > Instead they have to find the branch that actually has the code that > > the > > > asf-site build content came from. > > > 3. (Minor) PRs default to using the default branch. When filing a PR > > for > > > the website, GitHub suggests using asf-site first, which gives a > > message > > > stating that the changes cannot be merged since there is no common > > > history. > > > > > > *Why is our current default asf-site?* > > > > > > I’m not sure, maybe someone in the community has historical context on > > > this. It could be because this is the branch that pre-built docs are > > > committed to when we copy them from the main Ozone repo (a practice we > > are > > > looking to get rid of in the new website). It also seems there were > > > some changes > > > to branch publishing made around May 2021 > > > < > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml/blob/main/README.md#publishing-a-branch-to-your-project-web-site > > > > > > > so perhaps it was required to be this way for publishing before those > > > updates. > > > > > > *Is there any standard among other ASF projects for which branch should > > be > > > the default?* > > > > > > I’ve looked at a bunch of other project’s websites and have yet to find > > one > > > that’s using asf-site as the default. They are all using the > development > > > branch (equivalent to our master branch) as the default branch. See > > > > > > - https://github.com/apache/yunikorn-site > > > - https://github.com/apache/streampipes-website > > > - https://github.com/apache/kvrocks-website > > > - https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site > > > - https://github.com/apache/doris-website > > > - https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-site > > > > > > *Will this affect the existing website?* > > > > > > This should not affect the existing website. The branch to use for > > > deployment is hardcoded in .asf.yml > > > <https://github.com/apache/ozone-site/blob/asf-site/.asf.yaml> and not > > > implied from the repository’s default branch setting. Deployment should > > > work as usual. I will double check with infra on the ticket to make > sure > > no > > > changes are required when making this change. > > > > > > Overall a long winded email for a pretty simple change. I’ll start with > > my > > > +1 with the hope of incrementally improving the development experience > of > > > the current site, and in the future, the new website as well. > > > > > > Ethan > > > > > > -- *Sumit Agrawal* | Senior Staff Engineer cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com> [image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/> [image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera> ------------------------------
