asf-site-old-builds

[Christopher <ct...@apache.org>]

Any concerns or objections to dropping the asf-site-old-builds branch
from the accumulo-website repo?
I temporarily kept it around after I updated us to use the automated
site staging features of .asf.yaml, "just in case", but never had any
real justification to keep it.

Here's some points in favor of dropping:

* It contains nothing that can't be regenerated from the markdown,
whose history we still keep
* We never preserved an extra copy of the generated site HTML when we
were using CMS, so I don't think we need to keep a copy of this
* I discussed this with @fluxo in Slack #asfinfra, and they described
the generated content as "disposable" from INFRA perspective, and I
agree
* Since it doesn't have history in common with any other branch,
keeping it around makes the git repo larger than necessary, and more
time to do a new git clone
* Reducing the number of git branches makes it easier to know where to
contribute
* Mostly, we just don't need it for any purpose

Points against dropping:

... I can't think of any ....


Regards,

Christopher

Re: asf-site-old-builds

[Christopher <ct...@apache.org>]

Yeah, that's my thought, too. I'll go ahead and remove it.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 10:50 AM Mike Miller <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 for dropping them.  To me, it is the equivalent to keeping around old
> builds of code when all you need is the source code.
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:28 PM Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Any concerns or objections to dropping the asf-site-old-builds branch
> > from the accumulo-website repo?
> > I temporarily kept it around after I updated us to use the automated
> > site staging features of .asf.yaml, "just in case", but never had any
> > real justification to keep it.
> >
> > Here's some points in favor of dropping:
> >
> > * It contains nothing that can't be regenerated from the markdown,
> > whose history we still keep
> > * We never preserved an extra copy of the generated site HTML when we
> > were using CMS, so I don't think we need to keep a copy of this
> > * I discussed this with @fluxo in Slack #asfinfra, and they described
> > the generated content as "disposable" from INFRA perspective, and I
> > agree
> > * Since it doesn't have history in common with any other branch,
> > keeping it around makes the git repo larger than necessary, and more
> > time to do a new git clone
> > * Reducing the number of git branches makes it easier to know where to
> > contribute
> > * Mostly, we just don't need it for any purpose
> >
> > Points against dropping:
> >
> > ... I can't think of any ....
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christopher
> >

Re: asf-site-old-builds

[Mike Miller <mm...@apache.org>]

+1 for dropping them.  To me, it is the equivalent to keeping around old
builds of code when all you need is the source code.

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:28 PM Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:

> Any concerns or objections to dropping the asf-site-old-builds branch
> from the accumulo-website repo?
> I temporarily kept it around after I updated us to use the automated
> site staging features of .asf.yaml, "just in case", but never had any
> real justification to keep it.
>
> Here's some points in favor of dropping:
>
> * It contains nothing that can't be regenerated from the markdown,
> whose history we still keep
> * We never preserved an extra copy of the generated site HTML when we
> were using CMS, so I don't think we need to keep a copy of this
> * I discussed this with @fluxo in Slack #asfinfra, and they described
> the generated content as "disposable" from INFRA perspective, and I
> agree
> * Since it doesn't have history in common with any other branch,
> keeping it around makes the git repo larger than necessary, and more
> time to do a new git clone
> * Reducing the number of git branches makes it easier to know where to
> contribute
> * Mostly, we just don't need it for any purpose
>
> Points against dropping:
>
> ... I can't think of any ....
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Christopher
>