Hi Li Li, Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22778 for further instructions.
All the best, Dave > On Jan 20, 2022, at 10:16 PM, Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> wrote: > > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >
