[image: pr-520.png] (trying that image again) On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:00 PM Udi Meiri <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alright, created https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/520 > [image: pr-520.png] > Reduces staging upload from 500M down to 270M, and halves the number of > files from ~22k to 11k. > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:58 PM Pablo Estrada <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I believe tags will be necessarily because for anyone looking for old >> docs that have been removed, they will need to browse back in history, not >> just browse the tree of directories. >> -P. >> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 6:46 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Last time I talked with Scott I brought this idea in. I believe the plan >>> was either to publish compiled site to website directly, or keep it in >>> separate storage from apache/beam repo. >>> >>> One of the main reasons not to check in compiled version of website is >>> that every developer will have to pull all the versions of website every >>> time they clone repo, which is not that good of an idea to do. >>> >>> Regards, >>> --Mikhail >>> >>> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:42 PM Udi Meiri <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Pablo, the docs are generated into versioned paths, e.g., >>>> https://beam.apache.org/documentation/sdks/javadoc/2.5.0/ so tags are >>>> not necessary? >>>> Also, once apache/beam-site is merged with apache/beam the release >>>> branch should have the relevant docs (although perhaps it's better to put >>>> them in a different repo or storage system). >>>> >>>> Thomas, I would very much like to not have javadoc/pydoc generation be >>>> part of the website review process, as it takes up a lot of time when >>>> changes are staged (10s of thousands of files), especially when a PR is >>>> updated and existing staged files need to be deleted. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:15 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 For removing old documentation. >>>>> >>>>> @Thomas: Migration work is in backlog and will be picked up in near >>>>> time. >>>>> >>>>> --Mikhail >>>>> >>>>> Have feedback <http://go/migryz-feedback>? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:54 PM Thomas Weise <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 for removing pre 2.0 documentation (as well as the entries from >>>>>> https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/) >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't it part of the beam-site changes that we will no longer check >>>>>> in generated documentation into the repository? Those can be generated >>>>>> and >>>>>> deployed independently (when a commit to a branch occurs), such as done >>>>>> in >>>>>> the Apex and Flink projects. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was told that Scott who was working in the beam-site changes is on >>>>>> leave now and the migration is still pending (see note at >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/master/website). Is anyone else >>>>>> going to pick it up? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Thomas >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM Pablo Estrada <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it worth adding a tag / branch to the repositories every time we >>>>>>> make a release, so that people are able to dive in and find the docs? >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> -P. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:09 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would guess that users are still using some of these old >>>>>>>> releases. It is unclear from Beam website which releases are still >>>>>>>> supported or not. It probably makes sense to drop documentation for >>>>>>>> releases < 2.0. (I would suggest keeping docs for 2.0). For the future >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> can work on updating the Beam website to clarify the state of each >>>>>>>> release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Udi Meiri <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The older docs are not directly linked to and are in Github commit >>>>>>>>> history. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If there are no objections I'm going to delete javadocs and pydocs >>>>>>>>> for releases older than 1 year, >>>>>>>>> meaning 2.0.0 and older (going by the dates here >>>>>>>>> <https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/>). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:51 AM Daniel Oliveira < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The older docs should be recorded in the commit history of the >>>>>>>>>> website repository, right? If they're not currently used in the >>>>>>>>>> website and >>>>>>>>>> they're in the commit history then I don't see a reason to save them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:51 PM Udi Meiri <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> I'm writing a PR for apache/beam-site and >>>>>>>>>>> beam_PreCommit_Website_Stage is timing out after 100 minutes, >>>>>>>>>>> because it's >>>>>>>>>>> trying to deletes 22k files and then copy 22k files (warning >>>>>>>>>>> large file >>>>>>>>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Website_Stage/1276/consoleText> >>>>>>>>>>> ). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It seems that we could save a lot of time by deleting the older >>>>>>>>>>> javadoc and pydoc files for older versions. Is there a good reason >>>>>>>>>>> to keep >>>>>>>>>>> around this kind of documentation for older versions (say 1 year >>>>>>>>>>> back)? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Got feedback? go/pabloem-feedback >>>>>>> <https://goto.google.com/pabloem-feedback> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >> Got feedback? go/pabloem-feedback >> <https://goto.google.com/pabloem-feedback> >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
