asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Till Westmann" <ti...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Website
Date Tue, 05 May 2015 06:25:19 GMT


On 4 May 2015, at 15:07, Ted Dunning wrote:

> There are really two roles here.
>
> One is where you keep the source of the web site.  The other is where 
> you
> keep the pre-processed static HTML that is actually delivered to 
> users.
> One common pattern is to store the source in a special branch in the 
> main
> project repo and store the static HTML in a separate repo.  To some 
> degree,
> this pattern is an artifact.

Yes, I follow you here. So far we did have a branch ("documentation") 
that contained the source of the website (along with all the other 
sources) and the static HTML lived somewhere else. Now we'd like to put 
the static HTML into another git repository and use gitpubsub to publish 
it.

> It should also be possible to simply follow the github practice of 
> using a
> special branch (called gh-pages) and having the gitpubsub script do 
> all of
> the conversion to static html.  I am not clear on whether that is 
> supported
> yet.
>
> The gh-pages convention works great, but is a bit strange at first.  
> The
> great advantage it has is not intrinsic, but has to do mostly with the 
> fact
> that it allows you to use github as a preview mechanism.

I'm not sure I follow here (but many that's due to the fact that I don't 
understand the GitHub feature). Something needs to happen between the 
source and the static HTML (in our case the maven site plugin does it) 
and gitpubsub probably doesn't do that.
So who does it?

Thanks,
Till


> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Ian Maxon <imaxon@uci.edu> wrote:
>
>> It definitely should be it's own repository, in my mind at least.
>>
>> -Ian
>>
>> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Mike Carey <dtabass@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for a specific one....
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/3/15 1:08 PM, Till Westmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> When using gitpubsub one can either use an existing git repository 
>>>> or
>>>> have a specific one just for the site.
>>>>
>>>> Right now it seems to me that it would be better to have a specific
>>>> repository as
>>>> a) it avoids checking build artifacts into the source repository 
>>>> and
>>>> b) it’s a little cleaner than putting the site into either the 
>>>> asterixdb
>>>> or the hyracks repo.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts? Other opinions?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Till
>>>>
>>>> On May 3, 2015, at 9:13 AM, Till Westmann <tillw@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't know we could but after your mail I found humbedooh's 
>>>>> blog
>> post
>>>>> [1].
>>>>> That seems to be the better way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Till
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] 
>>>>> https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/git_based_websites_available
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 3, 2015, at 07:41, Jochen Wiedmann 
>>>>> <jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seeing as the project is using Git for source code, I'd suggest 
>>>>>> trying
>>>>>> gitpubsub instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 1:36 AM, Till Westmann <tillw@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> now that the code is imported, we should be able to build and

>>>>>>> deploy
>> a
>>>>>>> site.
>>>>>>> I’ve created a request [1] to create an SVN repository, so

>>>>>>> that we
>> can
>>>>>>> deploy the site via svnpubsub.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Till
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9579
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
>>>>>> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two
>> Three)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message