community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jay vyas <jayunit100.apa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: GitHub Pages
Date Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:45:06 GMT
Anything rendering markdown is GH compatible imo.  Sorry to bump this
zombie thread but just curious if anyone has thought more about this, its
really easy to edit markdown and push it - it would improve the docs of ALL
apache projects if we were able to just maintain docs without having to
push code to svn etc.....

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:55 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
> > SSL
> > Specifically - apache.org sites are in https-everywhere. Those sites
> > can't provide SSL.
> >
> >
> Yeah, I've been trying to think of how to deal with that. The only thing I
> could think of is if GitHub offered server-certs for the sub-domains it
> hosts (which they don't) or if we could provide one for them to use for the
> sub-domain (which there is no mechanism to do that with).
>
>
> > None of the current TLP web sites are being served from Apache
> > hardware though - it's all VMs in 2-3 different cloud providers.
> >
> >
> I figured it was something like that.
>
>
> > --David
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The github pages I've worked on have all been in Markdown, so they're
> > portable.
> > >
> > > I also don't see any reason why we can't host pages elsewhere since we
> > > control the source repositories.
> >
>
> To satisfy SSL needs, it seems we'd probably have to do that anyway. It'd
> be nice if we could stand up similar rendering service as an alternative to
> CMS (or even if CMS could be altered to use a git branch). If it were
> GH-compatible, that'd be best, because people could test/stage in their
> personal forks if they wish. Alternatively, this service could render a
> staging site from a different branch.
>
> I'm sure such a service would be very low priority right now (CMS is
> working well enough).
>
>
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
> > > <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >> Is it really necessary for our web pages to be served from Apache
> > hardware? If so, why?
> > >>
> > >> I understand why we want to control the canonical source, but do we
> > really need to own web server?
> > >>
> > >> A concern, for me, would be if hosting on GitHub Pages meant that we
> > could not easily switch to another host.
> > >>
> >
>
> I share this concern. I wonder if there's already a GH-compatible rendering
> service out in the open source which would be easy enough to deploy.
>
>
> > >> Ross
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:40 AM
> > >> To: dev@community.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: GitHub Pages
> > >>
> > >> Chris,
> > >>
> > >> The easy summary is that Apache would like to keep apache sites being
> > served by apache controlled hardware.
> > >>
> > >> Github serving pages fails that test.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I think those other comments about Jekyll had to do with keeping
> all
> > >>> > of the site storage on apache servers.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> I'm not sure I understand how Jekyll affects that. Are we concerned
> > >>> that GitHub will not render the site's source accurately? And, if so,
> > >>> wouldn't that concern extend to non-Jekyll static sources also?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> > There have been objections in this thread about using github.io
> > >>> > based sites even with site name masquerading.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> Does anybody wish to summarize those? I think it would be helpful.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> > Sent from my iPhone
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > On Mar 6, 2015, at 14:36, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Regarding some of the other comments about jekyll... it's
not
> true
> > >>> > > that
> > >>> > you
> > >>> > > need jekyll. You can publish plain HTML or Markdown also.
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
>



-- 
jay vyas

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