Well, I think the difference is that archive.org (and others -- google
cached pages come to mind) are devoted/known for that specific purpose.
The fact that Github ends up being a "de-facto" location for software
projects, I'm just nervous about the expecting good faith from the
denizens of the internet. Maybe I'm just worrying too much. If there's
sufficient "it'll be ok" opinion coming from the PMC, it's fine by me.
Christopher wrote:
I can't imagine there's a trademark issue since it's really just acting as
a mirror. If there were trademark issues, I imagine sites like
http://archive.org would be in big trouble. But, it certainly couldn't hurt
to find out.
Another option to sabotage the GH-rendered site is to add some javascript
which detects the location and displays an informative link back to the
canonical location for the site. That should be simple enough to do.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM Josh Elser<[email protected]> wrote:
It's also probably worth mentioning that this concern only comes about
for point #4 (or if we use the branch name gh-pages in point #1).
Josh Elser wrote:
The one concern I had was regarding automatic rendering of what would
look like "the Apache Accumulo website" on Github (both apache/accumulo
github account and other forks).
Christopher had said that no one seemed to object in comdev@ when he
talked about this a while back. I wanted to make sure everyone
considered this (for example, Christopher's fork of Drill's repository
now also looks like a canonical host of the Apache Drill project). I'm
not actively stating that I think it's an issue at this point, only
suggesting that we give it some thought and maybe ask someone who is
more knowledgable (Shane from trademarks?) before moving forward. The
worst case I envision is that we find some way to "gimp" the
github-rendered site (redirect back to the canonical accumulo.apache.org
or similar).
Christopher wrote:
I got some information back from INFRA about how the git-based sites
work.
It's just plain old static hosting of a git branch. So, whatever we'd
put
in a specified branch would show up directly on the site, no rendering
or
generation. This would completely bypass CMS and buildbot staging
builds.
Was discussing this with elserj in IRC, and these ideas came out of
that:
1. Switch site to use git branch named "site" or "website" or similar.
2. Use jekyll 3 to generate the static site contents in this git branch.
3. Store the unrendered (markdown) jekyll stuff in a gh-pages branch.
4. Possibly set up a post-commit hook on gh-pages branch to render
locally
and commit the generated static site to the "site" branch.
