on, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Owen O'Malley
>> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> This looks good.
>> > >>
>> > >> So do I understand any of the c
t; >> This looks good.
> > >>
> > >> So do I understand any of the commiters editing the site would still
> > >> need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like
> > >> autobuild?
> > >>
> > >
> &
he commiters editing the site would still
> >> need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like
> >> autobuild?
> >>
> >
> > It is manual, so it isn't as easy as github pages. However, I find that
> > generally I want to run jeky
push (how?), or is there a GitHub like
>> autobuild?
>>
>
> It is manual, so it isn't as easy as github pages. However, I find that
> generally I want to run jekyll locally first anyways to debug my changes.
>
FWIW, GitHub pages is pretty easy to debug (non-local): push to
gh
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
wrote:
> This looks good.
>
> So do I understand any of the commiters editing the site would still
> need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like
> autobuild?
>
It is manual, so it isn't
Git can be used instead of SVN. CMS is not required.
Drill has comprehensive docs on how to push their web-site:
https://github.com/apache/drill/tree/gh-pages-master
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Jay Vyas
wrote:
> Yeah, same question... Svn pushing or CMS still required? According to
> th
Yeah, same question... Svn pushing or CMS still required? According to the
snippet below the svn part is no longer needed? But maybe I'm
misinterpreting ...?
> On Aug 3, 2015, at 11:22 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
> This looks good.
>
> So do I understand any of the commiters editing
This looks good.
So do I understand any of the commiters editing the site would still
need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like
autobuild?
Is Jekyll still requiring various Ruby libraries to be installed in a
carefully selected version (with fun time on Windows for na
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Several projects are using Jekyll to emulate the github style site
> processing. As an example: http://drill.apache.org/
>
> THis is still a bit inconvenient in that the gh-pages branch has to be
> built using jekyll and then checked into SVN
>
>
> > None of the current TLP web sites are being served from Apache
> > hardware though - it's all VMs in 2-3 different cloud providers.
> >
> >
> I figured it was something like that.
>
>
> > --David
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Mike Kienenberger
wrote:
> The github pages I've worked on have all been in Markdown, so they're
> portable.
>
INdeed. And the Jekyll procedures I have talked about in this thread
allow GH emulation at small cost.
>
> I also don'
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:55 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> SSL
> Specifically - apache.org sites are in https-everywhere. Those sites
> can't provide SSL.
>
Very good point.
>
> None of the current TLP web sites are being served from Apache
> hardware though - it's all VMs in 2-3 different cloud p
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> I think those other comments about Jekyll had to do with keeping all of
> the site storage on apache servers.
>
>
I'm not sure I understand how Jekyll affects that. Are we concerned that
GitHub will not render the site's source accurately? An
ent cloud providers.
>
>
I figured it was something like that.
> --David
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Kienenberger
> wrote:
> > The github pages I've worked on have all been in Markdown, so they're
> portable.
> >
> > I also don'
ote:
> The github pages I've worked on have all been in Markdown, so they're
> portable.
>
> I also don't see any reason why we can't host pages elsewhere since we
> control the source repositories.
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPE
The github pages I've worked on have all been in Markdown, so they're portable.
I also don't see any reason why we can't host pages elsewhere since we
control the source repositories.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
wrote:
> Is it really nece
eed to own web server?
>
I am mostly echoing what I have heard here.
But ...
> A concern, for me, would be if hosting on GitHub Pages meant that we could
> not easily switch to another host.
>
This is definitely a big deal and a non-trivial effort. If we had dozens
of projects on GH an
On Mar 11, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Chris,
>
> The easy summary is that Apache would like to keep apache sites being
> served by apache controlled hardware.
Is that right ?
Or is it more an issue of keeping the source under ASF canonical repo ?
>
> Github serving pages fails t
Is it really necessary for our web pages to be served from Apache hardware? If
so, why?
I understand why we want to control the canonical source, but do we really need
to own web server?
A concern, for me, would be if hosting on GitHub Pages meant that we could not
easily switch to another
Chris,
The easy summary is that Apache would like to keep apache sites being
served by apache controlled hardware.
Github serving pages fails that test.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Christopher wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> >
> > I think those other com
I think those other comments about Jekyll had to do with keeping all of the
site storage on apache servers.
There have been objections in this thread about using github.io based sites
even with site name masquerading.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 6, 2015, at 14:36, Christopher wrote:
>
>
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2015-03-05 15:42 GMT+01:00 Sebastien Goasguen :
>
> > So FWIW, I never thought about using github pages for our website.
> > I just tried it.
> >
> > Created an orphaned gh-pages in our repo, pushed that.
yup ! GH-pages just finds the branch.
if its there it displays it.
its a totally decoupled publishing tool.
using gh-pages as a convention could allow
automation of th SVN tooling as well, so its
really a great, cross platform convention that
wont force coupling to github.
On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2015-03-05 15:42 GMT+01:00 Sebastien Goasguen :
>
>> So FWIW, I never thought about using github pages for our website.
>> I just tried it.
>>
>> Created an orphaned gh-pages in our repo, pushed that. It got
2015-03-05 15:42 GMT+01:00 Sebastien Goasguen :
> So FWIW, I never thought about using github pages for our website.
> I just tried it.
>
> Created an orphaned gh-pages in our repo, pushed that. It got mirrored
> right away and now we have:
> http://apache.github.io/cloudstack
So FWIW, I never thought about using github pages for our website.
I just tried it.
Created an orphaned gh-pages in our repo, pushed that. It got mirrored right
away and now we have:
http://apache.github.io/cloudstack/
Based off of:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/tree/gh-pages
Loving it
Hi Christopher,
GitHub Pages is actually powered by Jekyll: http://jekyllrb.com
So that would mean to add such build method to Apache CMS.
I'd be more than happy to explore such path.
On 04/03/15 22:06, Christopher wrote:
All,
Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub page
hristopher wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project
> > documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple
> > static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now
> usi
my guess is that GitLab would
> be
> > happy to waive fees and give us access to EE.
> >
> >
> > Just a thought.
> >
> > [1] https://about.gitlab.com/features/
> >
> > // Niclas
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Ch
the Enterprise system cost money, my guess is that GitLab would be
> happy to waive fees and give us access to EE.
>
>
> Just a thought.
>
> [1] https://about.gitlab.com/features/
>
> // Niclas
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Christopher wrote:
Mar 5, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Christopher wrote:
> All,
>
> Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project
> documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple
> static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now using
> git, an
gt; > I like the idea. Anything to avoid requiring svn to update project sites.
> >
> > But... Iirc I started a similar thread before and was told that
> forwarding
> > Apache.org to github static site was against the rules ?Maybe I
> > misinterpreted ...
> >
&
015, at 4:06 PM, Christopher wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project
> > documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple
> > static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of p
> All,
>
> Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project
> documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple
> static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now using
> git, and we mirror projects in GitHub, perhaps we
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Christopher wrote:
> All,
>
> Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project
> documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple
> static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now usin
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Christopher wrote:
> All,
>
> Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project
> documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple
> static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now usin
All,
Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project
documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple
static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now using
git, and we mirror projects in GitHub, perhaps we can help the individual
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ted Dunning
> wrote:
> > ...Apache Drill has been doing something like this for some time. They
> use
> > Jekyll from Github to render markdown as HTML and then commit the HTML to
> > SVN to th
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> ...Apache Drill has been doing something like this for some time. They use
> Jekyll from Github to render markdown as HTML and then commit the HTML to
> SVN to that pubsub carries it to the right places...
Do you have URLs that show how
Apache Drill has been doing something like this for some time. They use
Jekyll from Github to render markdown as HTML and then commit the HTML to
SVN to that pubsub carries it to the right places.
By doing this in the gh-pages branch of their git repo, the get the side
effect that they can use Gi
2015-01-08 9:26 GMT+01:00 Sergio Fernández :
> Hi Benedikt,
>
> what's the different between the workflow you're suggesting and using the
> doxia-module-markdown module for building the site with Maven?
>
Probably there's no difference. I was just unaware of the
doxia-module-markdown. Damn, every
Hi Benedikt,
what's the different between the workflow you're suggesting and using
the doxia-module-markdown module for building the site with Maven?
In Marmotta we use that, but we're open to fresh ideas in case we could
address some minor issues (page titles, variables replacement, etc) we
I've been thinking about extending the maven site build so that it can
create a markdown version of a projects site, which could then be committed
to a gh-pages branch for git based projects. Would anybody be interested in
joining such an endeavor?
Benedikt
2015-01-07 21:36 GMT+01:00 Ross Gardler
43 matches
Mail list logo
