Looks like the is agreement that all sources should be in the main beam repository, the remaining discussion was where the generated content should be served from, specifically the generated docs.
If the setup that Alan found allows us to keep using the beam-site repository for the generated stuff and that does not unreasonably complicate the CI process, then I'm in favor of that. It looks cleaner to not mingle source and generated files in the same repo. Otherwise we can do the asf-site branch in the main repo and get rid of docs from it once we found a better solution. On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 7:09 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: > OK, thanks. That link was very helpful. Of the three options we must use, > checking into git seems preferable than checking into svn let alone the > CMS. Keeping the same repo means that it's harder to generate the docs for > version X while head is checked out. > > I'm in favor of moving forward with this in the short term, but we should > expore other options (like Flink has) for the longer term. > > > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:53 PM Scott Wegner <sc...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Yes. There are few options for publishing your ASF website, described >> here: https://www.apache.org/dev/project-site.html. We can publish from >> a Git repo, SVN, or a UI-based CMS interface. >> >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:45 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I am also definitely in favor of a single repository. Perhaps I'm just >>> misunderstanding why the generated must be put in a git repository at >>> all--is it because that's the easiest way to serve them? >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:39 PM Scott Wegner <sc...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Alan found the place where website publishing is configured [1], which >>>> has examples of project sites being configured with more than one git root. >>>> This is great for us because it allows us to leave generated >>>> javadocs/pydocs in the beam-site repository and publish website markdown >>>> content from the main repo. >>>> >>>> Alan has a PR ready to publish generated HTML in a post-commit job [2]. >>>> Once that goes through the last step is to upgrade the publishing config. >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-puppet/blob/deployment/modules/gitwcsub/files/config/gitwcsub.cfg >>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/6431 >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 4:35 PM Scott Wegner <sweg...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> > We could add a new default branch (master?) and keep all the >>>>> non-generated files (src/) there, and put generated files (content/) in >>>>> the >>>>> asf-site branch (like we already do). >>>>> >>>>> I'm strongly in favor of having sources in a single repository. We >>>>> have significant process and infrastructure built up for the apache/beam >>>>> repo (for build, PR, CI, release, etc.) that we can take advantage of by >>>>> putting website sources in the same repo. The current beam-site repo PR >>>>> automation is flaky because it was custom-built and not given the same >>>>> level of attention as the main repo. >>>>> >>>>> The caveat to consolidating website sources in the main repo is that >>>>> it incentivizes putting the generated sources branch on the same repo. >>>>> I've >>>>> documented a few of the reasons in the Appendix of the design doc [1]: >>>>> - It's easier to maintain a single repository; easily apply existing >>>>> tooling/infrastructure >>>>> - Jenkins tooling for publishing generated HTML may not work >>>>> cross-repo [2] >>>>> >>>>> My preference is to move forward with the migration of sources to >>>>> apache/beam [master], and website generated HTML to apache/beam >>>>> [asf-site]. >>>>> I like the idea of separating the publishing/hosting of generated >>>>> javadocs/pydocs since they add so much cruft, but it should not hold up >>>>> the >>>>> migration. >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lfbMhdIyDzIaBTgc9OUByhSwR94kfOzS_ozwKWTVl5U/edit#heading=h.wqwi2jpoiiuc >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14843696/checkout-multiple-git-repos-into-same-jenkins-workspace >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:33 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Staying on beam-site SGTM. We could add a new default branch >>>>>> (master?) and keep all the non-generated files (src/) there, and put >>>>>> generated files (content/) in the asf-site branch (like we already do). >>>>>> That way there's no confusion as to which files you should update. >>>>>> (This is of course assuming we still place generated docs in git >>>>>> repos.) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:23 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> My thought was to leave the asf-site branch in the beam-site >>>>>>> repository, add generated docs to that branch (until we have a better >>>>>>> solution), and have only sources in the beam repo. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scott had filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-5459 - >>>>>>> it would eliminate the need to place generated docs into git repos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:06 AM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe that beam.apache.org is populated from the asf-site >>>>>>>> branch of the apache/beam-site repo. (gitpubsub: >>>>>>>> https://www.apache.org/dev/project-site.html#intro) >>>>>>>> If we move the markdown-based docs to apache/beam, leave generated >>>>>>>> javadoc and pydoc in apache/beam-site, and point gitpubsub to >>>>>>>> apache/beam, >>>>>>>> then javadoc and pydoc will not get pushed to the website. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is there some place where we can push javadoc and pydoc files? Or >>>>>>>> perhaps there an alternative way to push updates to beam.apache.org? >>>>>>>> (not requiring the asf-site branch) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 6:40 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Scott, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing the discussion back here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree that we should separate the changes for hosting of >>>>>>>>> generated java/pydocs from the rest of website automation so that we >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> make the switch and fix the contributor headache soon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But perhaps we can avoid adding 4m lines of generated code to the >>>>>>>>> main beam repository (and keep on adding with every release) if we >>>>>>>>> continue >>>>>>>>> to serve the site from the old beam-site repo? (I left a comment the >>>>>>>>> doc.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> About trying buildbot, as mentioned earlier I would be happy to >>>>>>>>> help with it. I prefer a setup that keeps the docs separate from the >>>>>>>>> web >>>>>>>>> site. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thomas >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 10:28 AM Scott Wegner <sc...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Re-opening this thread as it came up today in the discussion for >>>>>>>>>> PR#6458 [1]. This PR is part of the work for Beam-Site Automation >>>>>>>>>> Reliability improvements; design doc here: >>>>>>>>>> https://s.apache.org/beam-site-automation >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The current plan is to keep generated javadoc/pydoc sources only >>>>>>>>>> on the asf-site branch, which is necessary for the current >>>>>>>>>> githubpubsub >>>>>>>>>> publishing mechanism. This maintains our current approach, the only >>>>>>>>>> change >>>>>>>>>> being that we're moving the asf-site branch from the retiring >>>>>>>>>> apache/beam-site repository into a new apache/beam repo branch. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The concern for committing generated content is the extra >>>>>>>>>> overhead during git fetch. I did some analysis to measure the impact >>>>>>>>>> [2], >>>>>>>>>> and found that fetching a week of source + generated content history >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> apache/beam-site took 0.39 seconds. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I like the idea of publishing javadoc/pydoc snapshots to an >>>>>>>>>> external location like Flink does with buildbot, but that work is >>>>>>>>>> separable >>>>>>>>>> and shouldn't be a prerequisite for this effort. The goal of this >>>>>>>>>> work is >>>>>>>>>> to improve the reliability of automation for contributing website >>>>>>>>>> changes. >>>>>>>>>> At last measure, only about half of beam-site PR merges use Mergebot >>>>>>>>>> without experiencing some reliability issue [3]. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've opened BEAM-5459 [4] to track moving our generated docs out >>>>>>>>>> of git. Thomas, would you have bandwidth to look into this? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/6458#issuecomment-423406643 >>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lfbMhdIyDzIaBTgc9OUByhSwR94kfOzS_ozwKWTVl5U/edit#heading=h.uqzivheohd7j >>>>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lfbMhdIyDzIaBTgc9OUByhSwR94kfOzS_ozwKWTVl5U/edit#heading=h.a208cwi78xmu >>>>>>>>>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-5459 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:48 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Udi, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Good to know you will continue this work. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you want to try the buildbot route (which does >>>>>>>>>>> not require generated documentation to be checked into the repo). >>>>>>>>>>> Happy to >>>>>>>>>>> help with that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thomas >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:36 AM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm picking up the website migration. The plan is to not >>>>>>>>>>>> include generated files in the master branch. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> However, I've been told that even putting generated files a >>>>>>>>>>>> separate branch could blow up the git repository for all (e.g. >>>>>>>>>>>> make git >>>>>>>>>>>> pulls a lot longer?). >>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if this is a real issue or not. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 2:53 AM Robert Bradshaw < >>>>>>>>>>>> rober...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 5:28 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Yes, I think the separation of generated code will need to >>>>>>>>>>>>> occur prior to completing the merge and switching the web site to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the main >>>>>>>>>>>>> repo. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > There should be no reason to check generated documentation >>>>>>>>>>>>> into either of the repos/branches. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Huge +1 to this. Thomas, would have time to set something like >>>>>>>>>>>>> this up >>>>>>>>>>>>> for Beam? If not, could anyone else pick this up? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Please see as an example how this was solved in Flink, using >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ASF buildbot infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Documentation per version/release, for example: >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-1.5/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > The buildbot configuration is here (requires committer >>>>>>>>>>>>> access): >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/buildbot/aegis/buildmaster/master1/projects/flink.conf >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thomas >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:46 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin < >>>>>>>>>>>>> mig...@google.com> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:42 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>>> mig...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> +1 For removing old documentation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> @Thomas: Migration work is in backlog and will be picked >>>>>>>>>>>>> up in near time. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> --Mikhail >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Have feedback? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:54 PM Thomas Weise < >>>>>>>>>>>>> t...@apache.org> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>>> pabl...@google.com> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>>> al...@google.com> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>>> eh...@google.com> 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). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:51 AM Daniel Oliveira < >>>>>>>>>>>>> danolive...@google.com> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>>> eh...@google.com> 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). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback >> >
