cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitry Blotsky <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][DOCS] Revert a change
Date Wed, 13 Sep 2017 19:09:06 GMT
@fil: why is reworking the docs repo needed for automatic deployment?

@steve: could you merge it then? I'm far too rusty on my Cordova-ing to remember how to set
up my remotes to push to the ASF repo, sorry. :(


> On Sep 13, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Filip Maj <> wrote:
> We have an issue posted to make docs publishing automatic:
> Not to derail the topic, but there is a longer wishlist in that issue,
> and I do think achieving the goals in that issue would require
> reworking the docs repository quite a bit. We can discuss details in
> the issue thread.
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Dmitry Blotsky
> <> wrote:
>> Yes, ideally our deployment process should be automated. Also, it should *not* be
an SVN commit. It should be an rsync or an scp command. I would support any initiatives to
move to either one of those. If we had automated deployment, this discussion would be moot.
>> How much would it cost us to just have a VPS with nginx?
>> Switching to the topic of deployment docs now. Thanks, Shaz, for bringing this up
in discussion. My opinion was that we shouldn't have impactful commands be copy-paste-able,
which is why I had the instruction to commit in paragraph text. I think that if a committer
doesn't read the full text of the deployment docs, *they should not be deploying*. I can see
the argument that if they do read the text but just don't know *how* to commit in SVN, it's
annoying to search. However at the top of that section is an explicit link to a quick SVN
tutorial. I understand that not everyone reads the fine print, but IMO committers should,
and we should explicitly discourage that behaviour.
>> Ultimately I'm going to defer to Shaz here, but I think it's important to consider
the benefits of making deployment *feel* more serious by making RTFD necessary.
>> Kindly,
>> Dmitry
>>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Jan Piotrowski <> wrote:
>>> I am actually surprised deploying is a manual process at all.
>>> Having read the steps, I understand why of course.
>>> As a person that jumps in on all kinds of projects, I absolutely
>>> prefer docs that list each and every little step needed (including all
>>> the `cd` etc).
>>> The need for manual steps or checks could be emphasized by using a
>>> numbered list or checklist for the individual steps.
>>> (Will this stay on SVN even after the repo switch to Github? Merging
>>> and `gh-pages` is so nice and simple)
>>> -J
>>> 2017-09-13 9:02 GMT+02:00 Shazron <>:
>>>> This relates solely to instructions on how to *build* the site, and not the
>>>> contents of the site itself.
>>>> Bringing this up here for discussion since a committer wants to revert a
>>>> change by another committer, and there is potential for disagreement.
>>>> The pull request to revert is here:
>>>> There has been discussion on the original change here:
>>>> Two issues here:
>>>> 1. The change from `gulp build --prod` to `npm run serve`
>>>> 2. This instruction here (not reverted in the PR):
>>>> Issue (1) has some discussion in the GH link above for the original change.
>>>> Issue (2) there was some discussion in the Cordova Slack, that the reason
>>>> the `svn commit` wasn't there in the first place is to prevent copy/paste
>>>> of the commands without going through the changes step by step since
>>>> deploying to a site is an expensive operation that can screw up the site
>>>> proper care was not done.
>>>> My reason for adding the command was that the instructions are not complete
>>>> (when I had to do it myself when updating the docs for cordova-ios
>>>> release). I understand the rationale, but the instructions seem incomplete
>>>> (especially for new committers that haven't heard of SVN, I know they can
>>>> Google it, but that's more friction) and my other reason is: we should
>>>> trust that committers will do the right thing.
>>>> Not to make a mountain out of a mole-hill but it's important that these
>>>> revert discussions be out in the open so as misunderstandings/hurt feelings
>>>> don't occur, and we can nip it in the bud.
>>>> Thoughts from the community?
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message