It’s a bit late in my evening. You could access the-asf.slack.com #asfinfra and ask about saving/copying these secrets from pulsar.git to pulsar-site.git.
All the best, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 20, 2022, at 9:14 PM, Leo <urfreesp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > We need add two secrets(PULSARBOT_TOKEN and > PULSAR_CROWDIN_DOCUSAURUS_API_KEY) for pulsar-site repo, Here's the code link > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/blob/ffc2e424a7565584e58c1f5a10bb0b1253497f53/.github/workflows/ci-pulsar-website-next-build.yaml#L78-L79 > > <https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/blob/ffc2e424a7565584e58c1f5a10bb0b1253497f53/.github/workflows/ci-pulsar-website-next-build.yaml#L78-L79> > > > Thanks, > Li Li > > >> On Jan 21, 2022, at 11:04 AM, Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Liu Yu, >> >>>> On Jan 20, 2022, at 6:21 PM, Liu Yu <li...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dave, >>> >>> Thanks for creating the pulsar-site repo [1]! >>> >>> We (urf...@apache.org) are working on PIP 87 [2] and want to build and >>> preview the Pulsar website with the new version of Docusarus. >>> >>> As discussed before, our community has been considering bringing website >>> content out of the Pulsar repo. >>> >>> So can we move all the content under the site2 folder to the pulsar-site >>> repo? >> >> Yes! >> >> We’ll need to create a new ‘main’ branch and ask Infra to make it the >> default. >> >> Also a new staging branch. From the PR it will be named ‘asf-site-next’ >> >> All the best, >> Dave >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site >>> [2] >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IV35SI_F8G8cL-Vuzknc6RTGLK9_edRMpZpnrHvAWNs/edit#heading=h.n6wibg4w77xk >>> >>>> On 2021/11/17 23:57:58 Dave Fisher 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >
