I’m going to work through https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/README.md
I’ll make sure that any changes related to the asf-site branch don’t have issue with that. We may want to be able to publish alternative web designs to a staging sites. > On Nov 17, 2021, at 3:02 PM, Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > > I’ve updated my fork of apache/pulsar > > I’m not seeing how to run the workflow "CI - Pulsar Website build”. Any ideas? > > If not then I’m going to need to test locally and it will take some time to > ready it. > > >> On Nov 17, 2021, at 1:15 PM, Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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. > > Yes once we have moved over to the new then we can ask Infra to take care of > the branch protection along with deleting it. > > When I create the new repository I will copy all of the asf-site branch which > will take care of transferring the parts of the site not actively being built. I have created the new repository and populated the asf-site branch: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/tree/asf-site It publishes to a staging url which you can see here: https://pulsar.staged.apache.org Once we are ready we alter: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/blob/asf-site/.asf.yaml Per: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/git+-+.asf.yaml+features > > Regards, > Dave > >> >> >> -- >> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
