You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@logging.apache.org by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> on 2012/02/09 14:36:31 UTC
Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Hello Infra!
At the logging project most sub projects commit generated html to svn.
Going live is a matter of "svn up". Guess there is no problem to use
svnpubsub.
But there is one component (the upcoming log4j 2.0) which has started
with mvn site deploy. Is there a recommendation how combine this with
svnpubsub? The idea was to deploy to a local folder which is then
committed to svn. This would probably mean that a log4j2.0 website
update does mean a huge commit because most sources might be touched.
Is it a problem?
Cheers,
Christian
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS POST! DIRECT ALL FURTHER
> INQUIRIES TO infrastructure@apache.org]
>
> FYI: infrastructure policy regarding website hosting has
> changed as of November 2011: we are requiring all websites
> and dist/ dirs to be svnpubsub or ASF CMS backed by the end of 2012.
> If your PMC has already met this requirement congratulations,
> you can ignore the remainder of this post.
>
> As stated on http://www.apache.org/dev/project-site.html#svnpubsub
> we are migrating our webserver infrastructure to 100% svnpubsub
> over the course of 2012. If your site does not currently make
> use of this technology, it is time to consider a migration effort,
> as rsync-based sites will be PERMANENTLY FROZEN in Jan 2013 due
>
> to infra disabling the hourly rsync jobs. While we recommend
> migrating to the ASF CMS [0] for Anakia based or Confluence based
> sites, and have provided tooling [1] to help facilitate this,
> we are only mandating svnpubsub (which the CMS uses itself).
>
> svnpubsub is a client-server system whereby a client watches an
> svn working copy for relevant commit notifications from the svn
> server. It subsequently runs svn up on the working copy, bringing
> in the relevant changes. sites that use static build technologies
> that commit the build results to svn are naturally compatible with
> svnpubsub; simply file a JIRA ticket with INFRA to request a
> migration: any commits to the resulting build tree will be
>
> instantly picked up on the live site.
>
>
> The CMS is a more elaborate system based on svnpubsub which
> provides a webgui for convenient online editing. Dozens of
> sites have already successfully deployed using the CMS and
> are quite happy with the results. The system is sufficiently
> flexible to accommodate a wide variety of choices regarding
> templating systems and storage formats, but most sites have
> standardized on the combination of Django and Markdown. Talk
> to infra if you would like to use the CMS in this or some other
> fashion, we'll see what we can do.
>
>
> NOTE: the policy for dist/ dirs for managing project releases is
> similar. We have setup a dedicated svn server for handling this,
> please contact infra when you are ready to start using it.
>
>
> HTH
>
>
> [0]: http://www.apache.org/dev/cms
> [1]: https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/cms/conversion-utilities/
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2012-02-09, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> At the logging project most sub projects commit generated html to svn.
> Going live is a matter of "svn up". Guess there is no problem to use
> svnpubsub.
log4net doesn't have all of its site in svn either, but I think I can
rectify this sometime next week.
>From the infrastructure list I gather we don't need a single site svn
tree for all logging subprojects but can keep separate trees with
separate URLs to use for svnpubsub.
Most likely the main site cannot move until all subprojects are ready to
move as well, though. Infra would disable rsync for the main site (and
likely wouldn't want to use four different rsync configurations for the
subprojects instead).
Stefan
Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Posted by Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org>.
I take it back. Updating the sub projects would not be the problem, but the sub projects. But it looks like ant has solved that by putting the main web site in a subdirectory as well. That would work just fine.
Ralph
On Feb 23, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2012-02-23, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
>> Ralph and others,
>
>> I was thinking about svnpubsub again.
>
>> Wouldn't it be possible to have this svnpubsub'ed:
>> /www/logging.apache.org/
>
>> While you deploy with site:deploy to
>> /www/logging.apache.org/log4j2
>
>> Not sure if it will make any trouble?
>
> I'm pretty sure you can have svnpubsub use different svn URLs to publish
> for web URL spaces that might overlap in theory. http://ant.apache.org/
> is driven by http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ant/site/ant/production/
> while http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ is driven by
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ant/site/ivy/production/. No externals
> involved AFAIR.
>
> Maybe infra would prefer new svnpubsub customers to avoid this, I don't
> know.
>
> Stefan
Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> The log4j and log4net sites both have the powered by Maven logo on them so I expect they are also built with Maven.
>
> If you look at /x1/www/logging.apache.org on people it isn't owned by the proper user so we aren't being managed by this process yet.
That was always a problem in the past. I hope we would get rid of this
with pubsub
>
> What is wrong with having multiple entries in the config like ant does?
Not sure, but we would have nested directories. I thought it would be
easier to make an update in one go?
Ant config:
/x1/www/ant.apache.org: %(ASF)s/ant/site/ant/production
/x1/www/ant.apache.org/ivy: %(ASF)s/ant/site/ivy/production
/x1/www/ant.apache.org/ivy/ivyde: %(ASF)s/ant/site/ivyde/production
Logging config would be like that:
/x1/www/logging.apache.org: %(ASF)s/logging/site/trunk/docs/
/x1/www/logging.apache.org/log4php %(ASF)s/logging/site/trunk/docs/log4php
I do not know, but my guess is we would need to separate the
directories for the different sites in svn, like:
/x1/www/logging.apache.org/: %(ASF)s/logging/site/main/trunk/docs/
/x1/www/logging.apache.org/log4php: %(ASF)s/logging/site/log4php/trunk/docs/
Or is pubsub supposed to work with nested directories of that kind?
Cheers
Christian
Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Posted by Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org>.
The log4j and log4net sites both have the powered by Maven logo on them so I expect they are also built with Maven.
If you look at /x1/www/logging.apache.org on people it isn't owned by the proper user so we aren't being managed by this process yet.
What is wrong with having multiple entries in the config like ant does?
Ralph
On Feb 24, 2012, at 12:49 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> Greg posted a message on the infra list that got me confused. So I looked
>> at https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/projects/svnpubsub/.
>> There is a configuration file there that, if I understand it correctly, maps
>> locations in the web site to locations in svn. Ant has 3 definitions; one
>> for the main site, one for Ivy and one for IvyIDE. These appear to be 3
>> disjoint web sites that have very little in common. While the logging
>> project has a much more consistent look and feel, that is actually true of
>> our projects as well. So perhaps we just need to request entries be made for
>> the main site and each of the sub projects.
>
> hm, looking at the config:
>
> /x1/www/logging.apache.org: %(ASF)s/logging/site/trunk/docs/
>
> Wouldn't that be enough?
>
> Because everything is there:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/site/trunk/docs/
>
> The usual logging subproject commits to the subfolders of this
> repository, f.e. log4php commit to:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/site/trunk/docs/log4php/
>
> Probably we just need to commit a symbolic link with the log4j2 site
> and then deploy the site to that location. Of course, a "standard
> checkout" will not work. But hey, the user can have the log4j2 website
> with the log4j2 source so i don't consider this a problem.
> A symbolic link seems to go into svn as type special.
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch07s02.html#svn-ch-7-sect-2.3.7
> A short googling showed me it might work that way
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2012-02-24, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> The usual logging subproject commits to the subfolders of this
>> repository, f.e. log4php commit to:
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/site/trunk/docs/log4php/
>
> I'm not sure how the current site is generated, I tried to add myself a
> while ago and didn't manage to update the site (and didn't deem it
> important enough to follow up).
it should be maven generating to a specific directory which is then
committed to svn. Wow, I hate this. If you all would come up with:
lets go with site-deploy I am fine.
My biggest concern even with site-deploy: the nested directories we have
>
> Would this cause trouble for the process that generates the main site -
> i.e. directories (real or symlinks) in the target directory that are not
> to be deleted and not re-created by the build process either?
ew... no clue
>
> Stefan
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2012-02-24, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> Greg posted a message on the infra list that got me confused. So I looked
>> at https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/projects/svnpubsub/.
>> There is a configuration file there that, if I understand it correctly, maps
>> locations in the web site to locations in svn. Ant has 3 definitions; one
>> for the main site, one for Ivy and one for IvyIDE. These appear to be 3
>> disjoint web sites that have very little in common. While the logging
>> project has a much more consistent look and feel, that is actually true of
>> our projects as well. So perhaps we just need to request entries be made for
>> the main site and each of the sub projects.
That was what I thought as well.
> hm, looking at the config:
> /x1/www/logging.apache.org: %(ASF)s/logging/site/trunk/docs/
> Wouldn't that be enough?
> Because everything is there:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/site/trunk/docs/
> The usual logging subproject commits to the subfolders of this
> repository, f.e. log4php commit to:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/site/trunk/docs/log4php/
I'm not sure how the current site is generated, I tried to add myself a
while ago and didn't manage to update the site (and didn't deem it
important enough to follow up).
Would this cause trouble for the process that generates the main site -
i.e. directories (real or symlinks) in the target directory that are not
to be deleted and not re-created by the build process either?
Stefan
Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Greg posted a message on the infra list that got me confused. So I looked
> at https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/projects/svnpubsub/.
> There is a configuration file there that, if I understand it correctly, maps
> locations in the web site to locations in svn. Ant has 3 definitions; one
> for the main site, one for Ivy and one for IvyIDE. These appear to be 3
> disjoint web sites that have very little in common. While the logging
> project has a much more consistent look and feel, that is actually true of
> our projects as well. So perhaps we just need to request entries be made for
> the main site and each of the sub projects.
hm, looking at the config:
/x1/www/logging.apache.org: %(ASF)s/logging/site/trunk/docs/
Wouldn't that be enough?
Because everything is there:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/site/trunk/docs/
The usual logging subproject commits to the subfolders of this
repository, f.e. log4php commit to:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/site/trunk/docs/log4php/
Probably we just need to commit a symbolic link with the log4j2 site
and then deploy the site to that location. Of course, a "standard
checkout" will not work. But hey, the user can have the log4j2 website
with the log4j2 source so i don't consider this a problem.
A symbolic link seems to go into svn as type special.
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch07s02.html#svn-ch-7-sect-2.3.7
A short googling showed me it might work that way
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Feb 23, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2012-02-23, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
>> Ralph and others,
>
>> I was thinking about svnpubsub again.
>
>> Wouldn't it be possible to have this svnpubsub'ed:
>> /www/logging.apache.org/
>
>> While you deploy with site:deploy to
>> /www/logging.apache.org/log4j2
>
>> Not sure if it will make any trouble?
>
> I'm pretty sure you can have svnpubsub use different svn URLs to publish
> for web URL spaces that might overlap in theory. http://ant.apache.org/
> is driven by http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ant/site/ant/production/
> while http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ is driven by
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ant/site/ivy/production/. No externals
> involved AFAIR.
>
> Maybe infra would prefer new svnpubsub customers to avoid this, I don't
> know.
Greg posted a message on the infra list that got me confused. So I looked at https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/projects/svnpubsub/. There is a configuration file there that, if I understand it correctly, maps locations in the web site to locations in svn. Ant has 3 definitions; one for the main site, one for Ivy and one for IvyIDE. These appear to be 3 disjoint web sites that have very little in common. While the logging project has a much more consistent look and feel, that is actually true of our projects as well. So perhaps we just need to request entries be made for the main site and each of the sub projects.
Ralph
Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2012-02-23, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Ralph and others,
> I was thinking about svnpubsub again.
> Wouldn't it be possible to have this svnpubsub'ed:
> /www/logging.apache.org/
> While you deploy with site:deploy to
> /www/logging.apache.org/log4j2
> Not sure if it will make any trouble?
I'm pretty sure you can have svnpubsub use different svn URLs to publish
for web URL spaces that might overlap in theory. http://ant.apache.org/
is driven by http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ant/site/ant/production/
while http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ is driven by
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ant/site/ivy/production/. No externals
involved AFAIR.
Maybe infra would prefer new svnpubsub customers to avoid this, I don't
know.
Stefan
Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Posted by Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org>.
The only issue I'm aware of in publishing to a subdirectory like that is that I believe you have to check out the whole site from svn to be able to do it. I believe someone suggested making the sub projects be externals to avoid that. But if I have to check out the full site to be able to do a site build of Log4j2 then that is what I'll do I guess.
Ralph
On Feb 23, 2012, at 3:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ralph and others,
>
> I was thinking about svnpubsub again.
>
> Wouldn't it be possible to have this svnpubsub'ed:
> /www/logging.apache.org/
>
> While you deploy with site:deploy to
> /www/logging.apache.org/log4j2
>
> Not sure if it will make any trouble?
>
> If this doesn't work my feeling is we have only two options:
>
> A) use site:deploy for all logging projects
> B) make log4j2 using the oldschool process
>
> Personally I like site:deploy very much. But of course with a small
> team: so less work, so better.
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 10/02/2012, at 12:36 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Infra!
>>>>
>>>> At the logging project most sub projects commit generated html to svn.
>>>> Going live is a matter of "svn up". Guess there is no problem to use
>>>> svnpubsub.
>>>>
>>>> But there is one component (the upcoming log4j 2.0) which has started
>>>> with mvn site deploy. Is there a recommendation how combine this with
>>>> svnpubsub? The idea was to deploy to a local folder which is then
>>>> committed to svn. This would probably mean that a log4j2.0 website
>>>> update does mean a huge commit because most sources might be touched.
>>>> Is it a problem?
>>>
>>> We've been discussing how to best handle that on the Maven developer's list: http://s.apache.org/maven-site-svn
>>
>> Thanks Brett, I saw that thread as it occurred. However, it seems there isn't really any good resolution. It takes me no more than 5 minutes to deploy the site to my user account at p.a.o. Log4j 2 is about 30MB so if Simone's experience correlates I should expect this will become roughly 1 hr and 15 minutes. That won't be tolerable.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
Ralph and others,
I was thinking about svnpubsub again.
Wouldn't it be possible to have this svnpubsub'ed:
/www/logging.apache.org/
While you deploy with site:deploy to
/www/logging.apache.org/log4j2
Not sure if it will make any trouble?
If this doesn't work my feeling is we have only two options:
A) use site:deploy for all logging projects
B) make log4j2 using the oldschool process
Personally I like site:deploy very much. But of course with a small
team: so less work, so better.
Cheers
Christian
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/02/2012, at 12:36 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Infra!
>>>
>>> At the logging project most sub projects commit generated html to svn.
>>> Going live is a matter of "svn up". Guess there is no problem to use
>>> svnpubsub.
>>>
>>> But there is one component (the upcoming log4j 2.0) which has started
>>> with mvn site deploy. Is there a recommendation how combine this with
>>> svnpubsub? The idea was to deploy to a local folder which is then
>>> committed to svn. This would probably mean that a log4j2.0 website
>>> update does mean a huge commit because most sources might be touched.
>>> Is it a problem?
>>
>> We've been discussing how to best handle that on the Maven developer's list: http://s.apache.org/maven-site-svn
>
> Thanks Brett, I saw that thread as it occurred. However, it seems there isn't really any good resolution. It takes me no more than 5 minutes to deploy the site to my user account at p.a.o. Log4j 2 is about 30MB so if Simone's experience correlates I should expect this will become roughly 1 hr and 15 minutes. That won't be tolerable.
>
> Ralph
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 10/02/2012, at 12:36 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
>> Hello Infra!
>>
>> At the logging project most sub projects commit generated html to svn.
>> Going live is a matter of "svn up". Guess there is no problem to use
>> svnpubsub.
>>
>> But there is one component (the upcoming log4j 2.0) which has started
>> with mvn site deploy. Is there a recommendation how combine this with
>> svnpubsub? The idea was to deploy to a local folder which is then
>> committed to svn. This would probably mean that a log4j2.0 website
>> update does mean a huge commit because most sources might be touched.
>> Is it a problem?
>
> We've been discussing how to best handle that on the Maven developer's list: http://s.apache.org/maven-site-svn
Thanks Brett, I saw that thread as it occurred. However, it seems there isn't really any good resolution. It takes me no more than 5 minutes to deploy the site to my user account at p.a.o. Log4j 2 is about 30MB so if Simone's experience correlates I should expect this will become roughly 1 hr and 15 minutes. That won't be tolerable.
Ralph