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 Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:42:26 GMT
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