Yes, that should work. After that we can go ahead and remove `asf-site` from the main repo, although we need to make it "unprotected" to be able to do so.
-- Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:46 PM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > > If we change ORIGIN_REPO[1] to point to a new pulsar-site repos. > Then with the correct .asf.yaml file changes we can remove the asf-site > branch. > I see that the publish is run from this workflow [2] > Let me think about a PR to make the move. > > Regards, > Dave > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/7a34cebca25e6e584e8b758e6bd58c1c4fe8a58e/site2/tools/publish-website.sh#L25 > [2] > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/.github/workflows/ci-pulsar-website-build.yaml > > > > On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:31 PM, Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/tools/publish-website.sh > > > > > > -- > > Matteo Merli > > <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:29 PM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Show me where the code is that commits to the asf-site branch. > >> > >>> On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> I agree with that. > >>> > >>> I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the > >>> original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the > >>> same PR as the code change. That doesn't have to be the case always, > >>> especially for larger multi-PR changes, but it makes it easier to do > >>> quick corrections to the docs. > >>> > >>> I think the bigger problem here is to get rid of the generated site > >>> HTML stuff from the main pulsar repo. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Matteo Merli > >>> <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:16 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dave, > >>>> Having a new repo will make it harder for developers to contribute > >>>> documentation. > >>>> > >>>> Usually engineers do it like and do not have time to write docs. > >>>> > >>>> If we ask them to create two PRs only to add, for instance, a new > >>>> configuration option, then it would be somehow a pain. > >>>> > >>>> I am not saying that we shouldn't go this way, but it would be kind of a > >>>> pain for someone and we need to ear more voices. > >>>> > >>>> Enrico > >>>> > >>>> Il Mer 17 Nov 2021, 19:28 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > >>>> > >>>>> I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the > >>>>> developers who are making documentation changes. > >>>>> > >>>>> - Sijie > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi - > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There are two efforts happening in the community around website > >>>>>> refresh. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (1) Docusaurus upgrades. > >>>>>> (2) New web design. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is an effort to eliminate all the extra commits in the asf-site > >>>>>> branch of the main repository. In that thread I proposed a new > >>>>>> repository > >>>>>> for the website. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We can then discuss migration and development both on this mailing list > >>>>>> and as PRs and Issues in that repository. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do we want to have a PIP process here or can we be less formal? I think > >>>>>> that PRs. Issues, and simple commits can be sufficient. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Unless there are objections I will create a new repository - > >>>>>> pulsar-site > >>>>>> on Friday in 72 hours. > >>>>>> ‘ > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Dave > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
