Actually, I now have it all working (as far as I can tell) with everything pretty much the same as it looks with CMS today. After people have taken the time to give it a glance, I'll push it to the ASF repo, and then push the generated site to a separate branch. Then we can put in the INFRA ticket to switch from svn to git.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:42 PM Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm working on converting our current site contents over to jekyll at > https://github.com/ctubbsii/accumulo/tree/gh-pages > (view at http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo) > > Yes, it's terrible right now... it's in progress. :) > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:21 PM Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Lazy consensus is fine. If there are no objections, I don't want to hold >> things up. I feel like I've adequately expressed my concerns. Silence >> can and should be treated as acknowledgement for this, IMO. >> >> Christopher wrote: >> > Another reason we probably shouldn't worry about this: anybody can >> create a >> > DNS name at their leisure which transparently redirects to >> > accumulo.apache.org and serves its contents. This is perfectly >> legitimate >> > for a number of reasons, including corporate proxies/mirrors, >> > URL-shortening services, caching services, archiving services, >> > vision-impaired accessibility services, foreign-language DNS mappings, >> and >> > so-on. >> > >> > I think when it comes to trademarks and our website, our area of concern >> > should mostly focus on when people misrepresent our trademark in the >> course >> > of their mirroring/archiving. There's no risk of that for a mirror that >> is >> > explicitly under our control, but I'm really leaning towards the >> javascript >> > to detect and display a message about the canonical location just to >> > mitigate any possibility for concern. >> > >> > If you still have concerns, I'd be happy to put it up for a formal vote >> > from the PMC, or to get feedback from ASF trademarks folks before we >> > proceed. >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 3:22 PM Josh Elser<[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >
