Comments below.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Manikumar Reddy
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
>
> > Thanks Mani. Regarding the release process changes, a couple of comments:
> >
> > 1. Under "bug-fix releases", you mention "major release directory" a
> couple
> > o
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Thanks Mani. Regarding the release process changes, a couple of comments:
>
> 1. Under "bug-fix releases", you mention "major release directory" a couple
> of times. Is this right?
>
hmm..not sure. For bug fix releases like 0.8.2.X, we are re
Thanks Mani. Regarding the release process changes, a couple of comments:
1. Under "bug-fix releases", you mention "major release directory" a couple
of times. Is this right?
2. "Auto-generate the configuration docs" is mentioned a couple of times,
would it be worth including the command used to d
Hi Gwen,
Kafka site is updated to use Git repo. We can now push any site changes to
git web site repo.
1) "Contributing website changes" wiki page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Website+Documentation+Changes
2) "Website update process" added to Release Process wi
On 3 Oct 2015 16:44, "Gwen Shapira" wrote:
> OK, PR 171 is in, and the latest version of the docs is now in docs/
> directory of trunk!
Awesome. :)
> Next steps:
> 1. Follow up with infra on our github site
Follow-up issue filed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10539. Geoffrey
Core
Thanks gwen.. I am working on remaining steps. I will update you on the
progress.
Regards,
Mani
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> OK, PR 171 is in, and the latest version of the docs is now in docs/
> directory of trunk!
>
> Next steps:
> 1. Follow up with infra on our gith
OK, PR 171 is in, and the latest version of the docs is now in docs/
directory of trunk!
Next steps:
1. Follow up with infra on our github site
2. Update the docs contribution guide
3. Update the release guide (since we are releasing docs as part of our
release artifacts)
Mani, I assume you are o
Thanks Gwen, i will
update the next steps.
On Oct 3, 2015 1:08 AM, "Gwen Shapira" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I created asf-git under https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site
> .
> git and pushed our existing docs in there.
> What do we need to do to get infra to show this in our website?
>
> Nex
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Ashish wrote:
>
> Does this mean doc patches would be welcome only for a production
> release? else you would need a diff branch for accepting docs for
> trunk features/patches which don't get reflected on the website.
>
Yes, you will contribute changes to the rele
Thanks Gwen. Comments below.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> I created asf-git under https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site
> .
> git and pushed our existing docs in there.
> What do we need to do to get infra to show this in our website?
>
You need to reopen t
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I created asf-git under https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.
> git and pushed our existing docs in there.
> What do we need to do to get infra to show this in our website?
>
> Next steps:
> 1) Minor fix to PR 171
> 2) Me
Hi,
I created asf-git under https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.
git and pushed our existing docs in there.
What do we need to do to get infra to show this in our website?
Next steps:
1) Minor fix to PR 171
2) Merge PR 171
3) Get Apache to show our git site
4) Update wiki with "con
Hi Gwen,
We need to create new branch named "asf-site" in new git repository[1].
This is requirement from Apache Infra
for git based websites [2]. After creating new branch, we will the copy
the existing to svn repo contents to
new branch.
1. https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.
Hi Manikumar,
Sorry for huge delay!
1) This looks good, I'll get it in
2) I'm confused - do we need a new branch or a new repository? it looks
like you already got a new repository, so why do we need a branch as well?
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Manikumar Reddy
wrote:
> Jun/Gwen/Guozhan
Jun/Gwen/Guozhang,
Need your help to complete this.
(1) Copy latest docs to kafka repo:
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/171
(2) svn site repo -> git site repo migration : need committer help to
create a branch "asf-site".
new git site repo :
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos
Hi Kumar,
One note: we need to update the documentation on how to submit changes to
the website here:
http://kafka.apache.org/contributing.html
Ismael
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Manikumar Reddy
wrote:
> Hi Guozhang,
>
> Our plan is to follow Gwen's suggested approach and migrate the e
Hi Guozhang,
Our plan is to follow Gwen's suggested approach and migrate the existing
svn site repo to new git repo.
(1) Gwen's suggestion will help to us maintain latest docs in Kafka repo
itself. We periodically need to copy these latest docs to site repo. I
will submit patch for this.
I thought Gwen's suggestion was to us a separate folder in the same repo
for docs instead of a separate branch, Gwen can correct me if I was wrong?
Guozhang
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Manikumar Reddy
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>Infra team created git repo for kafka site docs.
>
>Gwen/Guozhan
Hi,
Infra team created git repo for kafka site docs.
Gwen/Guozhang,
Need your help to create a branch "asf-site" and copy the exiting
svn contents to that branch.
git repo: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?
My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the number of tools we
need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the generated site, we can
use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can watch for changes
on GitHub, etc.
Ismael
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy
Hi All,
Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed further.
1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
kumar
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy
wrote:
> Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us to fix
>
Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us to fix
occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round of voting.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shap
Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round of voting.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so I'm not sure a
> new vote is required.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
>
> > So I
Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so I'm not sure a
new vote is required.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> So I think we have two different approaches here. The original proposal
> from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo, and he
So I think we have two different approaches here. The original proposal
from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo, and hence
have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have accumulated
enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move website into the
same
+1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in Flume.
All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move changes to
svn to update website.
The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes to website
outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
On Wed, Aug 19, 20
yes. we can not. we need two separate github PRs for code and doc changes.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Even under the second option, it sounds like we still cannot include the
> code and doc changes in one commit?
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Man
Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked on is:
* The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest revision of the docs
(not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest state of code)
* When you submit a patch that requires doc modification, you modify all
relevant fil
Even under the second option, it sounds like we still cannot include the
code and doc changes in one commit?
Guozhang
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Manikumar Reddy
wrote:
> oops.. i did not check Ismail's mail.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Manikumar Reddy
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
oops.. i did not check Ismail's mail.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Manikumar Reddy
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have raised a Apache Infra ticket for migrating site docs from svn
> -> git .
> Currently, the gitwcsub client only supports using the "asf-site"
> branch for site docs.
> Infra team
Hi,
We have raised a Apache Infra ticket for migrating site docs from svn ->
git .
Currently, the gitwcsub client only supports using the "asf-site" branch
for site docs.
Infra team is suggesting to create new git repo for site docs.
Infra ticket here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira
I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an additional step that
moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
Ismael
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and website in the same
> commit given exi
Hi all,
It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and website in the same
commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703
FYI, I created a tiny trivial patch to address a typo in the web site
(KAFKA-2418), so maybe you can review it and eventually commit before
moving to github. ;)
Cheers,
Eddie
Em 12/08/2015 06:01, "Ismael Juma" escreveu:
> Hi Gwen,
>
> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the websi
Hi Gwen,
I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the move
so I pinged him in the issue.
Best,
Ismael
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never m
Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding +1, 3
> non-binding +1 and no -1.
>
> Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking for a
> volu
The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding +1, 3
non-binding +1 and no -1.
Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking for a
volunteer?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh wrote:
> +1 on same repo.
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, E
+1 on same repo.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro
wrote:
> +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
>
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>
> > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in sync.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant He
+1. As soon as possible, please. :)
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in sync.
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke wrote:
>
> > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more accurate
+1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in sync.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke wrote:
> +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more accurate they
> are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new
> feature/patch. Updating t
+1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more accurate they
are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new
feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documenta
I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of code / doc
change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
Guozhang
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
>
> Sqoop has the following process, wh
I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
Sqoop has the following process, which decouples documentation changes from
website changes:
1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the documentation
written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the documentation,
Hi,
For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving the website to Git:
http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like to see a bit of
a discussion around whether the website should be part of the same repo as
the code or not. I'
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Jay Kreps wrote:
> The issue last time was that Apache has special infrastructure for web
> hosting built around svn called svnpubsub. This is what takes the content
> changes and pushes them live to the site. They didn't yet have a gitpubsub
> at the time. If the
The issue last time was that Apache has special infrastructure for web
hosting built around svn called svnpubsub. This is what takes the content
changes and pushes them live to the site. They didn't yet have a gitpubsub
at the time. If they've fixed that then we should be unblocked to switch.
-Jay
Hi
When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git came up. That
would make contributing to docs much easier. I have contributed to
groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github could be useful.
Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a separate repo.
47 matches
Mail list logo
