accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: git-based site and jekyll
Date Tue, 08 Mar 2016 20:22:41 GMT
Well, I think the difference is that (and others -- google 
cached pages come to mind) are devoted/known for that specific purpose. 
The fact that Github ends up being a "de-facto" location for software 
projects, I'm just nervous about the expecting good faith from the 
denizens of the internet. Maybe I'm just worrying too much. If there's 
sufficient "it'll be ok" opinion coming from the PMC, it's fine by me.

Christopher wrote:
> I can't imagine there's a trademark issue since it's really just acting as
> a mirror. If there were trademark issues, I imagine sites like
> would be in big trouble. But, it certainly couldn't hurt
> to find out.
> Another option to sabotage the GH-rendered site is to add some javascript
> which detects the location and displays an informative link back to the
> canonical location for the site. That should be simple enough to do.
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM Josh Elser<>  wrote:
>> It's also probably worth mentioning that this concern only comes about
>> for point #4 (or if we use the branch name gh-pages in point #1).
>> Josh Elser wrote:
>>> The one concern I had was regarding automatic rendering of what would
>>> look like "the Apache Accumulo website" on Github (both apache/accumulo
>>> github account and other forks).
>>> Christopher had said that no one seemed to object in comdev@ when he
>>> talked about this a while back. I wanted to make sure everyone
>>> considered this (for example, Christopher's fork of Drill's repository
>>> now also looks like a canonical host of the Apache Drill project). I'm
>>> not actively stating that I think it's an issue at this point, only
>>> suggesting that we give it some thought and maybe ask someone who is
>>> more knowledgable (Shane from trademarks?) before moving forward. The
>>> worst case I envision is that we find some way to "gimp" the
>>> github-rendered site (redirect back to the canonical
>>> or similar).
>>> Christopher wrote:
>>>> I got some information back from INFRA about how the git-based sites
>>>> work.
>>>> It's just plain old static hosting of a git branch. So, whatever we'd
>> put
>>>> in a specified branch would show up directly on the site, no rendering
>> or
>>>> generation. This would completely bypass CMS and buildbot staging
>> builds.
>>>> Was discussing this with elserj in IRC, and these ideas came out of
>> that:
>>>> 1. Switch site to use git branch named "site" or "website" or similar.
>>>> 2. Use jekyll 3 to generate the static site contents in this git branch.
>>>> 3. Store the unrendered (markdown) jekyll stuff in a gh-pages branch.
>>>> 4. Possibly set up a post-commit hook on gh-pages branch to render
>>>> locally
>>>> and commit the generated static site to the "site" branch.

View raw message