Re: GitHub Pages
Git can be used instead of SVN. CMS is not required. Drill has comprehensive docs on how to push their web-site: https://github.com/apache/drill/tree/gh-pages-master On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Jay Vyas jayunit100.apa...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, same question... Svn pushing or CMS still required? According to the snippet below the svn part is no longer needed? But maybe I'm misinterpreting ...? On Aug 3, 2015, at 11:22 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote: This looks good. So do I understand any of the commiters editing the site would still need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like autobuild? Is Jekyll still requiring various Ruby libraries to be installed in a carefully selected version (with fun time on Windows for native dependencies), or is docker images like jekyll/jekyll making things easier? On 3 August 2015 at 15:58, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: Several projects are using Jekyll to emulate the github style site processing. As an example: http://drill.apache.org/ THis is still a bit inconvenient in that the gh-pages branch has to be built using jekyll and then checked into SVN, but it does work pretty easily. The process pretty much has to be manual because of the access required to check things into SVN, but there is nothing else that requires manual intervention. Actually, now infra has set it up so that you can have both in the same repository using the asf-site branch in git. Here is the generated html for ORC: https://github.com/apache/orc/tree/asf-site I really like the Jekyll engine for generating the HTML. ORC's jekyll source is at https://github.com/apache/orc/tree/master/site .. Owen -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718
Re: GitHub Pages
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote: This looks good. So do I understand any of the commiters editing the site would still need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like autobuild? It is manual, so it isn't as easy as github pages. However, I find that generally I want to run jekyll locally first anyways to debug my changes. My personal work flow is to have orc/site/target, which is the output directory for the jekyll be a separate git repository that is on the asf-pages branch. % cd site % emacs ... % bundle exec jekyll serve check http://localhost:4000/ % git commit ... % git push ... for the source % cd target % git commit ... % git push .. for the generated html Is Jekyll still requiring various Ruby libraries to be installed in a carefully selected version (with fun time on Windows for native dependencies), or is docker images like jekyll/jekyll making things easier? On 3 August 2015 at 15:58, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: Several projects are using Jekyll to emulate the github style site processing. As an example: http://drill.apache.org/ THis is still a bit inconvenient in that the gh-pages branch has to be built using jekyll and then checked into SVN, but it does work pretty easily. The process pretty much has to be manual because of the access required to check things into SVN, but there is nothing else that requires manual intervention. Actually, now infra has set it up so that you can have both in the same repository using the asf-site branch in git. Here is the generated html for ORC: https://github.com/apache/orc/tree/asf-site I really like the Jekyll engine for generating the HTML. ORC's jekyll source is at https://github.com/apache/orc/tree/master/site .. Owen -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718
Re: GitHub Pages
This looks good. So do I understand any of the commiters editing the site would still need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like autobuild? Is Jekyll still requiring various Ruby libraries to be installed in a carefully selected version (with fun time on Windows for native dependencies), or is docker images like jekyll/jekyll making things easier? On 3 August 2015 at 15:58, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: Several projects are using Jekyll to emulate the github style site processing. As an example: http://drill.apache.org/ THis is still a bit inconvenient in that the gh-pages branch has to be built using jekyll and then checked into SVN, but it does work pretty easily. The process pretty much has to be manual because of the access required to check things into SVN, but there is nothing else that requires manual intervention. Actually, now infra has set it up so that you can have both in the same repository using the asf-site branch in git. Here is the generated html for ORC: https://github.com/apache/orc/tree/asf-site I really like the Jekyll engine for generating the HTML. ORC's jekyll source is at https://github.com/apache/orc/tree/master/site .. Owen -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718
Re: GitHub Pages
Yeah, same question... Svn pushing or CMS still required? According to the snippet below the svn part is no longer needed? But maybe I'm misinterpreting ...? On Aug 3, 2015, at 11:22 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote: This looks good. So do I understand any of the commiters editing the site would still need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like autobuild? Is Jekyll still requiring various Ruby libraries to be installed in a carefully selected version (with fun time on Windows for native dependencies), or is docker images like jekyll/jekyll making things easier? On 3 August 2015 at 15:58, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: Several projects are using Jekyll to emulate the github style site processing. As an example: http://drill.apache.org/ THis is still a bit inconvenient in that the gh-pages branch has to be built using jekyll and then checked into SVN, but it does work pretty easily. The process pretty much has to be manual because of the access required to check things into SVN, but there is nothing else that requires manual intervention. Actually, now infra has set it up so that you can have both in the same repository using the asf-site branch in git. Here is the generated html for ORC: https://github.com/apache/orc/tree/asf-site I really like the Jekyll engine for generating the HTML. ORC's jekyll source is at https://github.com/apache/orc/tree/master/site .. Owen -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718
Re: GitHub Pages
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 ctubb...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:55 PM, David Nalley da...@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 mkien...@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.gard...@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.dunn...@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 ctubb...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@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 ctubb...@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
Re: GitHub Pages
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote: This looks good. So do I understand any of the commiters editing the site would still need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like autobuild? It is manual, so it isn't as easy as github pages. However, I find that generally I want to run jekyll locally first anyways to debug my changes. FWIW, GitHub pages is pretty easy to debug (non-local): push to gh-pages in a fork, before doing a PR against the gh-pages branch. If ASF ever did provide automated rendering, this is one reason I'd want it to be gh-pages compatible (because users who don't/can't have the build tools locally, can still make helpful contributions).
Re: GitHub Pages
We (developers) always discuss tools for making documentation easier. But we (developers) will always cite another hurdle (with tools) for not contributing more to documentation. In a lot of cases, it doesn't matter how easy the tools become, it is still the same heroic lot of people whoc write the docs. Doesn't matter if that is HTML, xdoc. Anakia, docbook, Maven text, Asciidoc, CMSes, Wiki, Jekyll or gh-pages. The unwilling will always be able to raise a reason why he can't contribute... And as a rather active doc writer, I am happy when receiving contributions in any form, such as email on mailing list, big or small, and I'll gladly put that in myself. I'd probably be happy with an audio contribution as well. It isn't the typing that is the hard part, it is coming up with the accurate Content. My 2 cents to this never ending debate... ;-) Cheers Niclas On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote: This looks good. So do I understand any of the commiters editing the site would still need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like autobuild? It is manual, so it isn't as easy as github pages. However, I find that generally I want to run jekyll locally first anyways to debug my changes. FWIW, GitHub pages is pretty easy to debug (non-local): push to gh-pages in a fork, before doing a PR against the gh-pages branch. If ASF ever did provide automated rendering, this is one reason I'd want it to be gh-pages compatible (because users who don't/can't have the build tools locally, can still make helpful contributions). -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: GitHub Pages
agreed niclas that tools are secondary; but deploying websites is just a hassle that steals cycles from that heroic group of folks who would rather be spending their time writing awesome docs :) On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: We (developers) always discuss tools for making documentation easier. But we (developers) will always cite another hurdle (with tools) for not contributing more to documentation. In a lot of cases, it doesn't matter how easy the tools become, it is still the same heroic lot of people whoc write the docs. Doesn't matter if that is HTML, xdoc. Anakia, docbook, Maven text, Asciidoc, CMSes, Wiki, Jekyll or gh-pages. The unwilling will always be able to raise a reason why he can't contribute... And as a rather active doc writer, I am happy when receiving contributions in any form, such as email on mailing list, big or small, and I'll gladly put that in myself. I'd probably be happy with an audio contribution as well. It isn't the typing that is the hard part, it is coming up with the accurate Content. My 2 cents to this never ending debate... ;-) Cheers Niclas On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote: This looks good. So do I understand any of the commiters editing the site would still need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like autobuild? It is manual, so it isn't as easy as github pages. However, I find that generally I want to run jekyll locally first anyways to debug my changes. FWIW, GitHub pages is pretty easy to debug (non-local): push to gh-pages in a fork, before doing a PR against the gh-pages branch. If ASF ever did provide automated rendering, this is one reason I'd want it to be gh-pages compatible (because users who don't/can't have the build tools locally, can still make helpful contributions). -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java -- jay vyas
Re: GitHub Pages
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@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 ctubb...@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.
Re: GitHub Pages
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:55 AM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote: SSL Specifically - apache.org sites are in https-everywhere. Those sites can't provide SSL. Very good point. None of the current TLP web sites are being served from Apache hardware though - it's all VMs in 2-3 different cloud providers. But these are all apache controlled, right?
Re: GitHub Pages
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com wrote: The github pages I've worked on have all been in Markdown, so they're portable. INdeed. And the Jekyll procedures I have talked about in this thread allow GH emulation at small cost. I also don't see any reason why we can't host pages elsewhere since we control the source repositories. Well, the cost of moving from that external hosting is a big risk, even if low probability. On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@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. Ross -Original Message- From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@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 ctubb...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@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 ctubb...@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.
Re: GitHub Pages
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. On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@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. Ross -Original Message- From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@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 ctubb...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@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 ctubb...@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.
Re: GitHub Pages
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@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? I am mostly echoing what I have heard here. But ... A concern, for me, would be if hosting on GitHub Pages meant that we could not easily switch to another host. This is definitely a big deal and a non-trivial effort. If we had dozens of projects on GH and they went down/changed business model, I could imagine weeks to months of outage as a result.
RE: GitHub Pages
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. Ross -Original Message- From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@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 ctubb...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@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 ctubb...@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.
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 ctubb...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@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 ctubb...@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.
Re: GitHub Pages
SSL Specifically - apache.org sites are in https-everywhere. Those sites can't provide SSL. None of the current TLP web sites are being served from Apache hardware though - it's all VMs in 2-3 different cloud providers. --David On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@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. On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@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. Ross -Original Message- From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@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 ctubb...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@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 ctubb...@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.
Re: GitHub Pages
On Mar 11, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: Chris, The easy summary is that Apache would like to keep apache sites being served by apache controlled hardware. Is that right ? Or is it more an issue of keeping the source under ASF canonical repo ? Github serving pages fails that test. On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@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 ctubb...@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.
Re: GitHub Pages
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:55 PM, David Nalley da...@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 mkien...@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.gard...@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.dunn...@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 ctubb...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@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 ctubb...@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.
Re: GitHub Pages
I think those other comments about Jekyll had to do with keeping all of the site storage on apache servers. There have been objections in this thread about using github.io based sites even with site name masquerading. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 6, 2015, at 14:36, Christopher ctubb...@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.
Re: GitHub Pages
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote: 2015-03-05 15:42 GMT+01:00 Sebastien Goasguen run...@gmail.com: So FWIW, I never thought about using github pages for our website. I just tried it. Created an orphaned gh-pages in our repo, pushed that. It got mirrored right away and now we have: http://apache.github.io/cloudstack/ Based off of: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/tree/gh-pages Neat! That's exactly the kind of test I was going to try. The next thing to try would be to see if we could get http://cloudstack.apache.org to point to http://apache.github.io/cloudstack ; that's the part that's somewhat questionable for me. Perhaps we could also do something like: make a project called apache.github.io and mirror it to http://github.com/apache/apache.github.io and create a CNAME from projects.apache.org to point to apache.github.io. Then we could maintain the projects site inside git also. Another CNAME would work just as well (maybe code.apache.org). Loving it, Usually you have to activate github pages in the repository configuration. Are github pages activated by default for ASF mirrors or did you request that from infra? gh-pages are enabled by default in GitHub these days. I don't even know if they can be disabled (except by not having a branch with that name). Regarding some of the other comments about jekyll... it's not true that you need jekyll. You can publish plain HTML or Markdown also. The other consideration somebody pointed out to me is the question of staging. CMS does that well today. But, that seems pretty easy, too, because you can view the rendering in your personal fork before pushing to the Apache repo's gh-pages branch to be mirrored and rendered.
Re: GitHub Pages
yup ! GH-pages just finds the branch. if its there it displays it. its a totally decoupled publishing tool. using gh-pages as a convention could allow automation of th SVN tooling as well, so its really a great, cross platform convention that wont force coupling to github.
Re: GitHub Pages
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote: All, Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now using git, and we mirror projects in GitHub, perhaps we can help the individual projects maintain their site's static content by simply committing to a gh-pages branch for their project? Since it's just static content which is still hosted and controlled by ASF, but simply placed in a way that GitHub can render it from the mirrors, I don't think there's too many issues of concern, but wasn't sure if anybody's put any thought into it. I know it would certainly be easier for some projects than using the existing CMS system with SVN (especially those otherwise developing exclusively with Git). It might just work today, but I haven't tried it. I'd be willing to work with INFRA to help experiment with it, though (especially if we wanted to try out the CNAME feature). More info: https://pages.github.com/ -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii Infra is more than willing to let you experiment to your hearts content. Perhaps we can setup a sandbox repo for you to test and work in? --David
Re: GitHub Pages
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote: All, Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now using git, and we mirror projects in GitHub, perhaps we can help the individual projects maintain their site's static content by simply committing to a gh-pages branch for their project? Since it's just static content which is still hosted and controlled by ASF, but simply placed in a way that GitHub can render it from the mirrors, I don't think there's too many issues of concern, but wasn't sure if anybody's put any thought into it. I know it would certainly be easier for some projects than using the existing CMS system with SVN (especially those otherwise developing exclusively with Git). It might just work today, but I haven't tried it. I'd be willing to work with INFRA to help experiment with it, though (especially if we wanted to try out the CNAME feature). More info: https://pages.github.com/ Even more information: https://help.github.com/categories/github-pages-basics/
Re: GitHub Pages
I think I remember the same thing... but in that case, the content was hosted exclusively in GitHub. This suggestion is that the content is hosted in ASF repos, and it just happens to be mirrored in GitHub, which conveniently does rendering. Ultimately, the value to be gained is: 1) better looking sites, with modern themes and tools for maintenance 2) less burden on INFRA and more ease of projects to update their sites 3) enhance the communication between projects and their users The CNAME features could be used to make sure the URL is project. apache.org or projects.apache.org/project or similar, so that it's still clear that it's official ASF content being presented (remember, we'd still control the content in ASF infrastructure, because we control the repos). Another possibility, if we have concerns about GitHub altering our official content (or whatever legal reasons we have) is that ASF could provide a similar/compatible mechanism to render these branches in our infrastructure as an alternative to CMS. That seems like more work for INFRA, though. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Jay Vyas jayunit100.apa...@gmail.com wrote: I like the idea. Anything to avoid requiring svn to update project sites. But... Iirc I started a similar thread before and was told that forwarding Apache.org to github static site was against the rules ?Maybe I misinterpreted ... On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote: All, Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now using git, and we mirror projects in GitHub, perhaps we can help the individual projects maintain their site's static content by simply committing to a gh-pages branch for their project? Since it's just static content which is still hosted and controlled by ASF, but simply placed in a way that GitHub can render it from the mirrors, I don't think there's too many issues of concern, but wasn't sure if anybody's put any thought into it. I know it would certainly be easier for some projects than using the existing CMS system with SVN (especially those otherwise developing exclusively with Git). It might just work today, but I haven't tried it. I'd be willing to work with INFRA to help experiment with it, though (especially if we wanted to try out the CNAME feature). More info: https://pages.github.com/ -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
Re: GitHub Pages
I would love to see a GitLab trial at Apache infrastructure - I feel uncomfortable at directing other developers to look at http://git-wip-us.apache.org/ - the rendering of a repository does not even tell you where to clone from! GitLab Installation is fairly easy, there's also a GitLab docker image that is pretty easy to test: https://registry.hub.docker.com/u/genezys/gitlab/ On 5 March 2015 at 00:14, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: On this note; Git without Github is like sex without a partner, sufficient but not very satisfactory. Github option has been explored in the past, and due to various reasons, it was not possible to achieve. But, during my last 2-3 year absence, has the GitLab[1] option been discussed and/or tried? GitLab is open sourced, can run on our infra and has many of the essential features of Github. But perhaps people are satisfied enough with the Github mirroring that is already in place, but with GitLab in house, we could (in theory) add features around licensing (like ICLA style assurance, similar to Jira), and non-committers could(!) be allowed a direct route to the horse's mouth... Although the Enterprise system cost money, my guess is that GitLab would be happy to waive fees and give us access to EE. Just a thought. [1] https://about.gitlab.com/features/ // Niclas On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote: All, Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now using git, and we mirror projects in GitHub, perhaps we can help the individual projects maintain their site's static content by simply committing to a gh-pages branch for their project? Since it's just static content which is still hosted and controlled by ASF, but simply placed in a way that GitHub can render it from the mirrors, I don't think there's too many issues of concern, but wasn't sure if anybody's put any thought into it. I know it would certainly be easier for some projects than using the existing CMS system with SVN (especially those otherwise developing exclusively with Git). It might just work today, but I haven't tried it. I'd be willing to work with INFRA to help experiment with it, though (especially if we wanted to try out the CNAME feature). More info: https://pages.github.com/ -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating) http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718
Re: GitHub Pages
On this note; Git without Github is like sex without a partner, sufficient but not very satisfactory. Github option has been explored in the past, and due to various reasons, it was not possible to achieve. But, during my last 2-3 year absence, has the GitLab[1] option been discussed and/or tried? GitLab is open sourced, can run on our infra and has many of the essential features of Github. But perhaps people are satisfied enough with the Github mirroring that is already in place, but with GitLab in house, we could (in theory) add features around licensing (like ICLA style assurance, similar to Jira), and non-committers could(!) be allowed a direct route to the horse's mouth... Although the Enterprise system cost money, my guess is that GitLab would be happy to waive fees and give us access to EE. Just a thought. [1] https://about.gitlab.com/features/ // Niclas On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote: All, Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now using git, and we mirror projects in GitHub, perhaps we can help the individual projects maintain their site's static content by simply committing to a gh-pages branch for their project? Since it's just static content which is still hosted and controlled by ASF, but simply placed in a way that GitHub can render it from the mirrors, I don't think there's too many issues of concern, but wasn't sure if anybody's put any thought into it. I know it would certainly be easier for some projects than using the existing CMS system with SVN (especially those otherwise developing exclusively with Git). It might just work today, but I haven't tried it. I'd be willing to work with INFRA to help experiment with it, though (especially if we wanted to try out the CNAME feature). More info: https://pages.github.com/ -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: GitHub Pages
I like the idea. Anything to avoid requiring svn to update project sites. But... Iirc I started a similar thread before and was told that forwarding Apache.org to github static site was against the rules ?Maybe I misinterpreted ... On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote: All, Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now using git, and we mirror projects in GitHub, perhaps we can help the individual projects maintain their site's static content by simply committing to a gh-pages branch for their project? Since it's just static content which is still hosted and controlled by ASF, but simply placed in a way that GitHub can render it from the mirrors, I don't think there's too many issues of concern, but wasn't sure if anybody's put any thought into it. I know it would certainly be easier for some projects than using the existing CMS system with SVN (especially those otherwise developing exclusively with Git). It might just work today, but I haven't tried it. I'd be willing to work with INFRA to help experiment with it, though (especially if we wanted to try out the CNAME feature). More info: https://pages.github.com/ -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
Re: GitHub Pages
While I'm interested in the idea of deploying GitLab (I've used it, it's nice enough), I think it's a separate issue than this thread about pages. Unless it strongly relates to the idea of pages, could we please discuss that in a separate thread, so we can give that topic it's own focus? -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote: I would love to see a GitLab trial at Apache infrastructure - I feel uncomfortable at directing other developers to look at http://git-wip-us.apache.org/ - the rendering of a repository does not even tell you where to clone from! GitLab Installation is fairly easy, there's also a GitLab docker image that is pretty easy to test: https://registry.hub.docker.com/u/genezys/gitlab/ On 5 March 2015 at 00:14, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: On this note; Git without Github is like sex without a partner, sufficient but not very satisfactory. Github option has been explored in the past, and due to various reasons, it was not possible to achieve. But, during my last 2-3 year absence, has the GitLab[1] option been discussed and/or tried? GitLab is open sourced, can run on our infra and has many of the essential features of Github. But perhaps people are satisfied enough with the Github mirroring that is already in place, but with GitLab in house, we could (in theory) add features around licensing (like ICLA style assurance, similar to Jira), and non-committers could(!) be allowed a direct route to the horse's mouth... Although the Enterprise system cost money, my guess is that GitLab would be happy to waive fees and give us access to EE. Just a thought. [1] https://about.gitlab.com/features/ // Niclas On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote: All, Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now using git, and we mirror projects in GitHub, perhaps we can help the individual projects maintain their site's static content by simply committing to a gh-pages branch for their project? Since it's just static content which is still hosted and controlled by ASF, but simply placed in a way that GitHub can render it from the mirrors, I don't think there's too many issues of concern, but wasn't sure if anybody's put any thought into it. I know it would certainly be easier for some projects than using the existing CMS system with SVN (especially those otherwise developing exclusively with Git). It might just work today, but I haven't tried it. I'd be willing to work with INFRA to help experiment with it, though (especially if we wanted to try out the CNAME feature). More info: https://pages.github.com/ -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating) http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718
Re: GitHub pages for git based Apache projects (Was: Re: Managing zyz.apache.org (was RE: WELCOME to dev@community.apache.org))
Hi, On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: ...Apache Drill has been doing something like this for some time. They use Jekyll from Github to render markdown as HTML and then commit the HTML to SVN to that pubsub carries it to the right places... Do you have URLs that show how that works? DeviceMap might be interested. -Bertrand
Re: GitHub pages for git based Apache projects (Was: Re: Managing zyz.apache.org (was RE: WELCOME to dev@community.apache.org))
2015-01-08 9:26 GMT+01:00 Sergio Fernández wik...@apache.org: Hi Benedikt, what's the different between the workflow you're suggesting and using the doxia-module-markdown module for building the site with Maven? Probably there's no difference. I was just unaware of the doxia-module-markdown. Damn, every time I thing I have a good idea, somebody else has implemented it already ;-) Thanks! Benedikt In Marmotta we use that, but we're open to fresh ideas in case we could address some minor issues (page titles, variables replacement, etc) we currently have. Cheers, On 08/01/15 09:20, Benedikt Ritter wrote: I've been thinking about extending the maven site build so that it can create a markdown version of a projects site, which could then be committed to a gh-pages branch for git based projects. Would anybody be interested in joining such an endeavor? Benedikt 2015-01-07 21:36 GMT+01:00 Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com: The answer to your question is different depending on what xyz is in http://xyz.apache.org Probably the most common answer is http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation -Original Message- From: jay vyas [mailto:jayunit100.apa...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 12:30 PM To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Re: WELCOME to dev@community.apache.org thanks daniel... here at bigtop we are 100% git based. so having an svn account , just to push changes to a site, seems to slow us down alot. is SVN required ? or is there another way? right now we have a system that uses maven, followed by svn and then we have to approve the changes in the web ui. would rather just push static html pages to our git repo , the way we push everything else. are all apache projects using SVN or do some folks have an easier workflow ? On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote: Essentially, github uses the same method as we do with svnpubsub. Files are pushed to a repository and then from there pushed directly to the web site. Is there anything specific about the github model that you think differ from how we do things? Apart from it being git and not subversion, obviously. With regards, Daniel. On 2015-01-07 21:06, jay vyas wrote: Hi apache ! Whats the simplest way to maintain the xyz.apache.org site? Right now we push to SVN, but would be great to use something like the github.io model, where the static pages are just hosted directly. On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:56 PM, dev-h...@community.apache.org wrote: Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the dev@community.apache.org mailing list. I'm working for my owner, who can be reached at dev-ow...@community.apache.org. Acknowledgment: I have added the address jayunit100.apa...@gmail.com to the dev mailing list. Welcome to dev@community.apache.org! Please save this message so that you know the address you are subscribed under, in case you later want to unsubscribe or change your subscription address. --- Administrative commands for the dev list --- I can handle administrative requests automatically. Please do not send them to the list address! Instead, send your message to the correct command address: To subscribe to the list, send a message to: dev-subscr...@community.apache.org To remove your address from the list, send a message to: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org Send mail to the following for info and FAQ for this list: dev-i...@community.apache.org dev-...@community.apache.org Similar addresses exist for the digest list: dev-digest-subscr...@community.apache.org dev-digest-unsubscr...@community.apache.org To get messages 123 through 145 (a maximum of 100 per request), mail: dev-get.123_...@community.apache.org To get an index with subject and author for messages 123-456 , mail: dev-index.123_...@community.apache.org They are always returned as sets of 100, max 2000 per request, so you'll actually get 100-499. To receive all messages with the same subject as message 12345, send a short message to: dev-thread.12...@community.apache.org The messages should contain one line or word of text to avoid being treated as sp@m, but I will ignore their content. Only the ADDRESS you send to is important. You can start a subscription for an alternate address, for example john@host.domain, just add a hyphen and your address (with '=' instead of '@') after the command word: dev-subscribe-john=host.dom...@community.apache.org To stop subscription for this address, mail: dev-unsubscribe-john=host.dom...@community.apache.org In both cases, I'll send a confirmation message to that address. When you receive it, simply reply to it to complete your subscription. If despite following these instructions, you do not get the desired
Re: GitHub pages for git based Apache projects (Was: Re: Managing zyz.apache.org (was RE: WELCOME to dev@community.apache.org))
Apache Drill has been doing something like this for some time. They use Jekyll from Github to render markdown as HTML and then commit the HTML to SVN to that pubsub carries it to the right places. By doing this in the gh-pages branch of their git repo, the get the side effect that they can use Github as a preview of the site before publishing to Apache infra. Works very well and is very low maintenance burden. It is also simple enough to be completely predictable. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote: 2015-01-08 9:26 GMT+01:00 Sergio Fernández wik...@apache.org: Hi Benedikt, what's the different between the workflow you're suggesting and using the doxia-module-markdown module for building the site with Maven? Probably there's no difference. I was just unaware of the doxia-module-markdown. Damn, every time I thing I have a good idea, somebody else has implemented it already ;-) Thanks! Benedikt In Marmotta we use that, but we're open to fresh ideas in case we could address some minor issues (page titles, variables replacement, etc) we currently have. Cheers, On 08/01/15 09:20, Benedikt Ritter wrote: I've been thinking about extending the maven site build so that it can create a markdown version of a projects site, which could then be committed to a gh-pages branch for git based projects. Would anybody be interested in joining such an endeavor? Benedikt 2015-01-07 21:36 GMT+01:00 Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com: The answer to your question is different depending on what xyz is in http://xyz.apache.org Probably the most common answer is http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation -Original Message- From: jay vyas [mailto:jayunit100.apa...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 12:30 PM To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Re: WELCOME to dev@community.apache.org thanks daniel... here at bigtop we are 100% git based. so having an svn account , just to push changes to a site, seems to slow us down alot. is SVN required ? or is there another way? right now we have a system that uses maven, followed by svn and then we have to approve the changes in the web ui. would rather just push static html pages to our git repo , the way we push everything else. are all apache projects using SVN or do some folks have an easier workflow ? On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote: Essentially, github uses the same method as we do with svnpubsub. Files are pushed to a repository and then from there pushed directly to the web site. Is there anything specific about the github model that you think differ from how we do things? Apart from it being git and not subversion, obviously. With regards, Daniel. On 2015-01-07 21:06, jay vyas wrote: Hi apache ! Whats the simplest way to maintain the xyz.apache.org site? Right now we push to SVN, but would be great to use something like the github.io model, where the static pages are just hosted directly. On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:56 PM, dev-h...@community.apache.org wrote: Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the dev@community.apache.org mailing list. I'm working for my owner, who can be reached at dev-ow...@community.apache.org. Acknowledgment: I have added the address jayunit100.apa...@gmail.com to the dev mailing list. Welcome to dev@community.apache.org! Please save this message so that you know the address you are subscribed under, in case you later want to unsubscribe or change your subscription address. --- Administrative commands for the dev list --- I can handle administrative requests automatically. Please do not send them to the list address! Instead, send your message to the correct command address: To subscribe to the list, send a message to: dev-subscr...@community.apache.org To remove your address from the list, send a message to: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org Send mail to the following for info and FAQ for this list: dev-i...@community.apache.org dev-...@community.apache.org Similar addresses exist for the digest list: dev-digest-subscr...@community.apache.org dev-digest-unsubscr...@community.apache.org To get messages 123 through 145 (a maximum of 100 per request), mail: dev-get.123_...@community.apache.org To get an index with subject and author for messages 123-456 , mail: dev-index.123_...@community.apache.org They are always returned as sets of 100, max 2000 per request, so you'll actually get 100-499. To receive all messages with the same subject as message 12345, send a short message to: dev-thread.12...@community.apache.org
Re: GitHub pages for git based Apache projects (Was: Re: Managing zyz.apache.org (was RE: WELCOME to dev@community.apache.org))
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: ...Apache Drill has been doing something like this for some time. They use Jekyll from Github to render markdown as HTML and then commit the HTML to SVN to that pubsub carries it to the right places... Do you have URLs that show how that works? DeviceMap might be interested. https://github.com/apache/drill/tree/gh-pages See the README Also http://jekyllrb.com/
