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 01:35:50 GMT
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