Wow, that's looking great. Thanks, Christopher! Billie
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Josh! I fixed all the issues you saw, except the screenshots one, > since that's currently just how our layout is (looks the same at > accumulo.apache.org). > > Most of the bugs you saw were existing bugs with either our HTML or our > Markdown... but whatever CMS is doing is a bit more tolerant than Kramdown > is apparently. > > Biggest problem I saw was that people keep forgetting quotes around HTML > attributes. Example, it should be <a href="location">, not <a > href=location>. > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:57 PM Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * Some companies on http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo/people.html are > > goofed as are the timezones. > > * Some broken links on http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo/source.html. > > Coding practices are also messed up. > > * http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo/contrib.html contrib project > > entries are a little wacky. > > * http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo/screenshots.html is weird with the > > monitor screenshot (should be beneath the text?) > > * Just noticed that Other and Documentation both have a link to the > > papers/presentations. That might actually be how the site is now, just > > realized it's duplicative. > > > > Thanks again for doing this. It's great! > > > > Christopher wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > >
