Re: [DISCUSS] Should we have Jekyll build directly to asf-site branch?

Hi Christopher, I checked out the artifacts from the auto-built jobs. The first thing I noticed was that downloading the artifacts took over five minutes. Now this may be a personal issue, but if this is the same for everyone then downloading the files could take longer than reviewing the actual c

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we have Jekyll build directly to asf-site branch?

Hi Dave, How often would you estimate the diff in the PR is insufficient, and you need a full site build to get a sense of how the change is viewed? I imagine this might come up with some longer blog posts with a lot of complex layout and references to docs, etc., but that doesn't happen very freq

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we have Jekyll build directly to asf-site branch?

Hi Dan, Auto-publishing a PR to a staging branch is probably not a good idea (I can see how it could be abused to put malicious content on the apache.org domain). Having some on-demand staging that is manually triggered could work, but I'm pretty sure that would lead to more complexity than what

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we have Jekyll build directly to asf-site branch?

+1 I definitely agree that merges to main should deploy to asf-site. However, I think staging still has a place in the build pipeline, just not where it currently lives. The staging branch provides a way to review rendered changes and does remove the "worked on my machine" factor. Reviews can cove

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we have Jekyll build directly to asf-site branch?

I find the staging site useful for reviewing changes before publishing. There are some things that are not the easiest to review in a markdown diff. Especially since the markdown is transformed to what is ultimately displayed. I have no issue with streamlining this, I'll just need to remember to be

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we have Jekyll build directly to asf-site branch?

+1 to make the change. I agree that when PRs are merged we generally just want to publish immediately. FWIW, this is how we do things for the ActiveMQ website and it works fine, we just publish and there is no staging. On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 3:49 PM Ch

[VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.10.3-rc1

Accumulo Developers, Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.10.3. Git Commit: 733863638d85d0109d217da7ea5f36f5e483e207 Branch: 1.10.3-rc1 If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using: git tag -f -s -m 'Apache Accumulo 1.10.3' rel/1.10.3 \ 733

[DISCUSS] Should we have Jekyll build directly to asf-site branch?

Hi Accumulo Devs, When I first set up the automation using .asf.yaml for Jekyll builds to go to the asf-staging branch, I expected us to get a bit more use out of the staging site at https://accumulo.staged.apache.org/ However, that really hasn't happened, and it seems that we basically almost alw

Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo quarterly report (due Saturday 4/8)

LGTM as well. Thanks Ed. Albert On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 4:27 PM dev1 wrote: > The Accumulo community decided to draft the Apache community reports on > the Accumulo dev list – and this is a draft of the January report for > review / comments. > > The text below is copied from the reporting tool

Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo quarterly report (due Saturday 4/8)

Looks good to me. On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 5:44 AM Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Report looks good, I don't' think there's anything else to add. > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:58 AM Dave Marion wrote: > > > LGTM. Thanks for putting this together Ed. > > > > On Tue,

Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo quarterly report (due Saturday 4/8)

Report looks good, I don't' think there's anything else to add. On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:58 AM Dave Marion wrote: > LGTM. Thanks for putting this together Ed. > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 4:27 PM dev1 wrote: > > > The Accumulo community decided to draft the Apache community reports on > > the Acc