I’m making progress here, but I need help getting the pulsarbot GH secret into the pulsar-site repository.
If that secret can be shared directly to me then I can fully test before adding my PR. Thanks, Dave > On Nov 17, 2021, at 3:57 PM, Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >
