accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: git-based site and jekyll
Date Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:38:18 GMT
Thanks Josh! I fixed all the issues you saw, except the screenshots one,
since that's currently just how our layout is (looks the same at
accumulo.apache.org).

Most of the bugs you saw were existing bugs with either our HTML or our
Markdown... but whatever CMS is doing is a bit more tolerant than Kramdown
is apparently.

Biggest problem I saw was that people keep forgetting quotes around HTML
attributes. Example, it should be <a href="location">, not <a
href=location>.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:57 PM Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> * Some companies on http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo/people.html are
> goofed as are the timezones.
> * Some broken links on http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo/source.html.
> Coding practices are also messed up.
> * http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo/contrib.html contrib project
> entries are a little wacky.
> * http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo/screenshots.html is weird with the
> monitor screenshot (should be beneath the text?)
> * Just noticed that Other and Documentation both have a link to the
> papers/presentations. That might actually be how the site is now, just
> realized it's duplicative.
>
> Thanks again for doing this. It's great!
>
> Christopher wrote:
> > Actually, I now have it all working (as far as I can tell) with
> everything
> > pretty much the same as it looks with CMS today. After people have taken
> > the time to give it a glance, I'll push it to the ASF repo, and then push
> > the generated site to a separate branch. Then we can put in the INFRA
> > ticket to switch from svn to git.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:42 PM Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>  wrote:
> >
> >> I'm working on converting our current site contents over to jekyll at
> >> https://github.com/ctubbsii/accumulo/tree/gh-pages
> >> (view at http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo)
> >>
> >> Yes, it's terrible right now... it's in progress. :)
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:21 PM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Lazy consensus is fine. If there are no objections, I don't want to
> hold
> >>> things up. I feel like I've adequately expressed my concerns. Silence
> >>> can and should be treated as acknowledgement for this, IMO.
> >>>
> >>> Christopher wrote:
> >>>> Another reason we probably shouldn't worry about this: anybody can
> >>> create a
> >>>> DNS name at their leisure which transparently redirects to
> >>>> accumulo.apache.org and serves its contents. This is perfectly
> >>> legitimate
> >>>> for a number of reasons, including corporate proxies/mirrors,
> >>>> URL-shortening services, caching services, archiving services,
> >>>> vision-impaired accessibility services, foreign-language DNS mappings,
> >>> and
> >>>> so-on.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think when it comes to trademarks and our website, our area of
> concern
> >>>> should mostly focus on when people misrepresent our trademark in the
> >>> course
> >>>> of their mirroring/archiving. There's no risk of that for a mirror
> that
> >>> is
> >>>> explicitly under our control, but I'm really leaning towards the
> >>> javascript
> >>>> to detect and display a message about the canonical location just to
> >>>> mitigate any possibility for concern.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you still have concerns, I'd be happy to put it up for a formal
> vote
> >>>> from the PMC, or to get feedback from ASF trademarks folks before we
> >>>> proceed.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 3:22 PM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Well, I think the difference is that archive.org (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
> >>>>>> http://archive.org 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<josh.elser@gmail.com>
> >>>   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
> >>>>> accumulo.apache.org
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message