Il Gio 18 Nov 2021, 20:32 Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> ha scritto: > I’m making progress here, but I need help getting the pulsarbot GH secret > into the pulsar-site repository. > You have to open a INFRA ticket
Enrico > 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > > > >
