Hi tison, Thanks for raising this up!
Our community had a similar discussion previously and chose to "keep" the doc repo stay in the Pulsar main repo at that time. [1] lists the pros and cons of "keep" and "not keep" solutions. I'm +0 on this proposal because I think the total scores of these two solutions are almost equal after weighing the pros and cons. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/mf2xwntfgn84dq78ksqv22jk3drq6xb3 On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 5:40 PM tison <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your feedback! > > @Asaf > > > pre-commit > > I mean CI checks before merging a patch. Currently, we don't run checks for > the content before merging them. This causes a series of syntax errors and > broken links issues. If we hold docs under site2 folder in the main repo > and then copied to the site repo, we have two places to build such CI > checks. What's worse, the checks for the main repo will be quite > cumbersome (that you do some if-else logic in the whole Pulsar CI > workflows, and do the sync sequentially in that workflow). > > If we hold the source of docs only in the site repo, we can extend the > "precommit" workflow[1] I added recently to check for syntax errors and > broken links also. > > > What does the apache/pulsar-site repo contain today? > > It should be covered by the documentation guide page[2]. It holds the > source of the official website and the user docs are synced from the main > repo. > > > What content do we have today in the pulsar repo related to the site? > > After issue-18014[3] is done, we host only user docs and some JSON metadata > in the main repo, which is synced by site_syncer.py[4]. > > > Can you explain that better? Are you saying pulsar source JARs contain > the documentation? > > No. Source JARs contain only the Java files and necessary copyrights info. > The source release is, for example, > > https://archive.apache.org/dist/pulsar/pulsar-2.10.2/apache-pulsar-2.10.2-src.tar.gz > , > which is extracted to 173M where 129M is occupied by the site2 folder. > > This also affects when developers do git clone to clone the repo. > > > I mean, if you wish to document a bug fix in 2.9.x, for example, would > you do it in the 2.9.x branch under site2/docs or > site2/website/versioned_docs/2.9.5? > > This is another question. Ideally, we should have hosted versioned docs > associated with the specific version to that branch, like Apache Flink does > as I mentioned[5]. But we do not, and actually the situation is we update > the versioned docs under the master branch and thus, the docs can be synced > properly. > > See also the "Alternatives" section in the original email. > > @All > > Since we don't have objections to the possible cons listed above or any new > ones, I'm going to create a tracking issue later this week and show what > will be changed in PRs for further review. > > Best, > tison. > > [1] > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/blob/f7abc615d57d9846ed093922d24bff952dc0e838/.github/workflows/ci-precommit.yml > [2] > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/document-contribution/#source-repositories > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18014 > [4] > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/blob/f7abc615d57d9846ed093922d24bff952dc0e838/tools/pytools/lib/execute/site_syncer.py > [5] https://github.com/apache/flink/tree/master/docs > > > PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> 于2022年12月19日周一 16:26写道： > > > +1 > > > > I support moving them to the website repo. > > > > Thanks, > > Penghui > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 12:04 PM Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > +1. The most significant point to me is that we can preview all the > > > content of the website without synchronizing contents from the > > > apache/pulsar repo. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yunze > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 9:53 AM Li Li <urf...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > +1, That’s a good idea. > > > > > > > > > On Dec 16, 2022, at 07:07, tison <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > After several works around the build flow of our official > > > website[1][2][3], > > > > > the content sync and site build flow is debuggable and reproducible > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > However, compared to other Apache projects' websites' project > layouts > > > and > > > > > workflow, we still meet two challenges on the Pulsar site: > > > > > > > > > > 1. We don't have a pre-commit workflow for any website-related > > changes. > > > > > Thus, we don't detect broken links or syntax errors when reviewing > > new > > > > > patches[4][5][6]. > > > > > 2. The website's content is two-level down in `site2/website-next` > > for > > > > > historical reasons, which is confusing for contributors. > > > > > > > > > > To overcome these two shortcomings, I propose the following: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Move the website's content to the root level, then we have a > > > first-class > > > > > Docu&yarn-based JS project layout. It's more convenient and > familiar > > to > > > > > related developers. > > > > > 2. Host the source of docs in the site repo (apache/pulsar-site) > > > instead of > > > > > under `site2` folder in the main repo and do content sync. > > > > > > > > > > Below are the pros and cons: > > > > > > > > > > Pros > > > > > > > > > > 1. Obviously, we have the pre-commit workflow now. And since we > host > > > the > > > > > source of docs in one repo, we don't have to run the pre-commit > > > workflow in > > > > > two places, which can be quite cumbersome to implement. > > > > > 2. The size of the source release of the main repo can be reduced a > > > lot. > > > > > Currently, 63MB out of 140MB of the sources are taken by the site2 > > > folder, > > > > > which we can remove totally. In addition, we carry out > full-versioned > > > docs > > > > > every release. > > > > > 3. We can clean up a large portion of "integration" to debug the > site > > > > > brittlely on the main repo[7] (etc.) and redundant contribution > > > guide[8]. > > > > > This way, when updating docs, we can preview the result in one repo > > > instead > > > > > of actually doing the sync on the fly. In addition, this > integration > > > blocks > > > > > we move the website content to the top level since it makes strong > > > > > assumptions about the relative layout. > > > > > > > > > > Cons > > > > > > > > > > The most significant con is that we cannot update the code and docs > > in > > > one > > > > > patch against apache/pulsar now. You must open a new pull request > to > > > > > apache/pulsar-site, cross-reference each other and manage the merge > > > order > > > > > (synchronization). > > > > > > > > > > Alternatives: > > > > > > > > > > To resolve the versioned docs issue, an alternative is to host only > > the > > > > > user docs along with each version, like Flink does[9]. But it both > > > detaches > > > > > from the Docu framework and requires significant development > efforts. > > > > > > > > > > Since it can explicitly change the development flow (that is, you > > > should > > > > > now update docs separately), I am starting this discussion here to > > > reach > > > > > for your feedback. > > > > > > > > > > Welcome to leave your comments! > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > tison. > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://pulsar.apache.org/ > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site > > > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18014 > > > > > [4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/17599 > > > > > [5] > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17863#discussion_r990174850 > > > > > [6] > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17853#discussion_r991803704 > > > > > [7] > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/b1f9e351fa4d5aba197d33cfc0c536516b55b61f/site2/website/start.sh > > > > > [8] > > > > > > > > > > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/document-preview/#preview-documentation-changes > > > > > [9] https://github.com/apache/flink/tree/master/docs > > > > > > > > > >
