community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: GitHub Pages
Date Wed, 04 Mar 2015 23:35:54 GMT
I think I remember the same thing... but in that case, the content was
hosted exclusively in GitHub. This suggestion is that the content is hosted
in ASF repos, and it just happens to be mirrored in GitHub, which
conveniently does rendering. Ultimately, the value to be gained is:

1) better looking sites, with modern themes and tools for maintenance
2) less burden on INFRA and more ease of projects to update their sites
3) enhance the communication between projects and their users

The CNAME features could be used to make sure the URL is "<project>." or "<project>" or similar, so that it's
still clear that it's official ASF content being presented (remember, we'd
still control the content in ASF infrastructure, because we control the
repos). Another possibility, if we have concerns about GitHub altering our
official content (or whatever legal reasons we have) is that ASF could
provide a similar/compatible mechanism to render these branches in our
infrastructure as an alternative to CMS. That seems like more work for
INFRA, though.

Christopher L Tubbs II

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Jay Vyas <>

> I like the idea. Anything to avoid requiring svn to update project sites.
> But... Iirc I started a similar thread before and was told that forwarding
> to github static site was against the rules ?Maybe I
> misinterpreted ...
> > On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Christopher <> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project
> > documentation, static site hosting? A lot of is simple
> > static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now
> using
> > git, and we mirror projects in GitHub, perhaps we can help the individual
> > projects maintain their site's static content by simply committing to a
> > gh-pages branch for their project?
> >
> > Since it's just static content which is still hosted and controlled by
> ASF,
> > but simply placed in a way that GitHub can render it from the mirrors, I
> > don't think there's too many issues of concern, but wasn't sure if
> > anybody's put any thought into it. I know it would certainly be easier
> for
> > some projects than using the existing CMS system with SVN (especially
> those
> > otherwise developing exclusively with Git).
> >
> > It might "just work" today, but I haven't tried it. I'd be willing to
> work
> > with INFRA to help experiment with it, though (especially if we wanted to
> > try out the CNAME feature).
> >
> > More info:
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> >

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