leekeiabstraction commented on issue #356:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fluss-rust/issues/356#issuecomment-3979434257
@luoyuxia @wuchong
For publishing the `fluss-rust` website, which approach should we take?
| | Publish from fluss-rust | Publish from
fluss-website | Publish from new fluss-rust-website |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| New repos needed | 0 | 0
| 1 |
| ASF tickets needed | 0 | 0
| 1 (new repo) |
| Cross-repo secrets | No | Yes (`GH_TOKEN`)
| Yes (`GH_TOKEN`) |
| CI permission on source | `contents: write` | `contents: read`
| `contents: read` |
| Coupling with fluss | None | High
| None |
| Git bloat on source repo | Yes | No
| No |
| Versioning complexity | Low (own branch) | High (preserve both)
| Low (own branch) |
| Race conditions | None | Manage with
concurrency group | None |
- Cross repo secrets: using `fluss-website` like approach requires
configuring `fluss-rust` with secret to push to website repo
- CI permission on source: only read is needed when using `fluss-website`
like approach because `fluss-rust` source branch does not need to be updated
- Coupling with fluss: sharing `fluss-website` couples `fluss` and
`fluss-rust` websites. If either has bug, both stops deploying.
- Race conditions: publishing both `fluss` and `fluss-rust` around the same
time may result in later workflow overwriting the result of earlier workflow.
This can be worked around using git workflow concurrency group
Additionally, which of these do we prefer to publish `fluss-rust` docs under?
- `fluss.apache.org/fluss-rust/`
- `fluss.apache.org/clients/`
- `clients.fluss.apache.org/`
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
