Re: Where is the website source?

[Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>]

On 28/02/2022 02.36, Greg Stein wrote:
> It used to be in the CMS, but was removed last August:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/vpphnjqcklswvgy2h57h2bgmclwonoy4
> 
> We have not stood up a Pelican-based website (yet). The TLP server has been
> detached from version control, so it displays a stale copy from August.

I've created a new steve-website repository for whatever we decide the 
website should contain. pelican + .asf.yaml is definitely the path of 
least resistance here.

> 
> Cheers,
> -g
> 
> 
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 11:02 AM sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> As the subject says: where is the website source? It is rather out of date.
>>
>> Sebb
>>
> 

Re: Where is the website source?

[sebb <se...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 14:43, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 4:52 AM sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 10:30, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >...
>
> > > Thus: my suggestion that the source content for the site lives on the
> > main
> > > branch (next to all our code) in the "site" subdir, and gets generated to
> > > the "asf-site" branch. Apache STeVe developers shouldn't ever have to
> > > change branches (stick to "main" for both dev and site work).
> >
> > OK, in which case I agree that it is not a disadvantage for the
> > average developer.
> >
> > AFAICT it makes the site build process more complicated, but that is
> > usually automated.
> >
>
> Hunh? It would be totally automated. Push a change to main:/site and then
> pelican produces a change and pushes to asf-site branch. Then it appears on
> the website.

I was thinking about needing to test a change locally, without committing.
Or needing to investigate a site build issue.

> This build is part of the .asf.yaml system. It's basically invisible. Just
> change the .md files and they appear a few seconds later on the website.
> Even better: on github.com, you can use the "pencil" to edit the .md files
> and then click the "Preview" tab before committing. The process uses the
> same markdown as GitHub's preview (minus the page CSS, of course). And I
> mean *the same* ... we use GitHub Inc's C library to perform the
> markdown->HTML translation. It makes editing .md files much like a wiki in
> ease-of-use.

Indeed, but there may still be the occasional need to try local builds.

> Cheers,
> -g

Re: Where is the website source?

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 4:52 AM sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 10:30, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>...

> > Thus: my suggestion that the source content for the site lives on the
> main
> > branch (next to all our code) in the "site" subdir, and gets generated to
> > the "asf-site" branch. Apache STeVe developers shouldn't ever have to
> > change branches (stick to "main" for both dev and site work).
>
> OK, in which case I agree that it is not a disadvantage for the
> average developer.
>
> AFAICT it makes the site build process more complicated, but that is
> usually automated.
>

Hunh? It would be totally automated. Push a change to main:/site and then
pelican produces a change and pushes to asf-site branch. Then it appears on
the website.

This build is part of the .asf.yaml system. It's basically invisible. Just
change the .md files and they appear a few seconds later on the website.
Even better: on github.com, you can use the "pencil" to edit the .md files
and then click the "Preview" tab before committing. The process uses the
same markdown as GitHub's preview (minus the page CSS, of course). And I
mean *the same* ... we use GitHub Inc's C library to perform the
markdown->HTML translation. It makes editing .md files much like a wiki in
ease-of-use.

Cheers,
-g

Re: Where is the website source?

[sebb <se...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 10:30, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 3:50 AM sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 07:33, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 4:53 PM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 28/02/2022 02.36, Greg Stein wrote:
> > > > > It used to be in the CMS, but was removed last August:
> > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/vpphnjqcklswvgy2h57h2bgmclwonoy4
> > > > >
> > > > > We have not stood up a Pelican-based website (yet). The TLP server
> > has
> > > > been
> > > > > detached from version control, so it displays a stale copy from
> > August.
> > > >
> > > > I've created a new steve-website repository for whatever we decide the
> > > > website should contain. pelican + .asf.yaml is definitely the path of
> > > > least resistance here.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is a unilateral decision that I disagree with.
> > >
> > > I've already suggested that we put the content in the (future) steve.git
> > > repository, with the Pelican-generated content into the "asf-site" branch
> > > on that repository. There are zero reasons for a second repository. The
> > > fact that other PMCs do that is an anti-pattern used by people that don't
> > > understand version control.
> >
> > I disagree. Having the website in a branch of the code repo makes it
> > harder to maintain both at the same time.
> >
>
> I think you're not quite understanding the typical pattern for how
> .asf.yaml and the Pelican generation works. The source content lives on the
> "main" branch, and when that gets changed, the site is rebuilt and
> committed to the "asf-site" branch. When that branch changes, the TLP
> servers pick up that change and pulls it down to the server. It also pings
> our CDN to flush the cache for that website.
>
> In other words: this two-branch approach is ASF-standard.
>
> There are many ASF websites that use the same two-branch pattern, but
> different tools to map source to output (eg. Hugo, jekyll, maven, etc)
>
> Thus: my suggestion that the source content for the site lives on the main
> branch (next to all our code) in the "site" subdir, and gets generated to
> the "asf-site" branch. Apache STeVe developers shouldn't ever have to
> change branches (stick to "main" for both dev and site work).

OK, in which case I agree that it is not a disadvantage for the
average developer.

AFAICT it makes the site build process more complicated, but that is
usually automated.

> Cheers,
> -g

Re: Where is the website source?

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 3:50 AM sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 07:33, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 4:53 PM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 28/02/2022 02.36, Greg Stein wrote:
> > > > It used to be in the CMS, but was removed last August:
> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/vpphnjqcklswvgy2h57h2bgmclwonoy4
> > > >
> > > > We have not stood up a Pelican-based website (yet). The TLP server
> has
> > > been
> > > > detached from version control, so it displays a stale copy from
> August.
> > >
> > > I've created a new steve-website repository for whatever we decide the
> > > website should contain. pelican + .asf.yaml is definitely the path of
> > > least resistance here.
> > >
> >
> > That is a unilateral decision that I disagree with.
> >
> > I've already suggested that we put the content in the (future) steve.git
> > repository, with the Pelican-generated content into the "asf-site" branch
> > on that repository. There are zero reasons for a second repository. The
> > fact that other PMCs do that is an anti-pattern used by people that don't
> > understand version control.
>
> I disagree. Having the website in a branch of the code repo makes it
> harder to maintain both at the same time.
>

I think you're not quite understanding the typical pattern for how
.asf.yaml and the Pelican generation works. The source content lives on the
"main" branch, and when that gets changed, the site is rebuilt and
committed to the "asf-site" branch. When that branch changes, the TLP
servers pick up that change and pulls it down to the server. It also pings
our CDN to flush the cache for that website.

In other words: this two-branch approach is ASF-standard.

There are many ASF websites that use the same two-branch pattern, but
different tools to map source to output (eg. Hugo, jekyll, maven, etc)

Thus: my suggestion that the source content for the site lives on the main
branch (next to all our code) in the "site" subdir, and gets generated to
the "asf-site" branch. Apache STeVe developers shouldn't ever have to
change branches (stick to "main" for both dev and site work).

Cheers,
-g

Re: Where is the website source?

[sebb <se...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 07:33, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 4:53 PM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On 28/02/2022 02.36, Greg Stein wrote:
> > > It used to be in the CMS, but was removed last August:
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/vpphnjqcklswvgy2h57h2bgmclwonoy4
> > >
> > > We have not stood up a Pelican-based website (yet). The TLP server has
> > been
> > > detached from version control, so it displays a stale copy from August.
> >
> > I've created a new steve-website repository for whatever we decide the
> > website should contain. pelican + .asf.yaml is definitely the path of
> > least resistance here.
> >
>
> That is a unilateral decision that I disagree with.
>
> I've already suggested that we put the content in the (future) steve.git
> repository, with the Pelican-generated content into the "asf-site" branch
> on that repository. There are zero reasons for a second repository. The
> fact that other PMCs do that is an anti-pattern used by people that don't
> understand version control.

I disagree. Having the website in a branch of the code repo makes it
harder to maintain both at the same time.

Either need to keep swapping branches (remembering to stash/unstash).
Or have two separate local checkouts, in which case there is double
the background data: might as well be separate repos.

Also, I don't think it plays well with GitHub, AFAIK its search
function does not scan all branches.

Git branches are fine for versions of the same thing, but not for
completely different sources (even if logically related).

> Please generate consensus on your new repo, or delete it.

I'm not directly involved, but I agree that a separate repo is more suitable.

> -g

Re: Where is the website source?

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 4:53 PM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 28/02/2022 02.36, Greg Stein wrote:
> > It used to be in the CMS, but was removed last August:
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/vpphnjqcklswvgy2h57h2bgmclwonoy4
> >
> > We have not stood up a Pelican-based website (yet). The TLP server has
> been
> > detached from version control, so it displays a stale copy from August.
>
> I've created a new steve-website repository for whatever we decide the
> website should contain. pelican + .asf.yaml is definitely the path of
> least resistance here.
>

That is a unilateral decision that I disagree with.

I've already suggested that we put the content in the (future) steve.git
repository, with the Pelican-generated content into the "asf-site" branch
on that repository. There are zero reasons for a second repository. The
fact that other PMCs do that is an anti-pattern used by people that don't
understand version control.

Please generate consensus on your new repo, or delete it.

-g