On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:01 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy
<aizha...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Nam and Brian have been working together on blog post names and the decision
> was to keep them as they are for now, because Hugo doesn’t fully support the
> feature that was mentioned earlier [1]. Also I believe this can be done after
> merging the PR.
>
> 1) Currently, the main blocker for merging is Staging Test Failures.
That and finishing the review. (Is someone tracking/coordinating this?)
> Michal showed Nam how to handle the 1st test which was about Apache License
> missing.
>
> However, the 2nd and 3rd tests looked like some kind of permissions error on
> the Jenkins worker, not to be configured by code. For more details based on
> Jenkin logs, the 2nd test failed because of website/www/site/themes and the
> 3rd test failed because of website/www/node_modules, they are both
> auto-generated files on build. Can someone help Nam to look into this?
>
> RAT ("Run RAT PreCommit") — FAILURE
> Website_Stage_GCS ("Run Website_Stage_GCS PreCommit") — FAILURE
> Website_Stage_GCS ("Run Website_Stage_GCS PreCommit") — FAILURE
>
> 2) Are there any other blockers for merging? @Ahmet/Robert/others please
> share if there are any other blockers.
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/gohugoio/hugo/pull/4494
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:19 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:07 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 6:30 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I took the massive commit and split it up into:
>> >>>
>> >>> (1) Infrastructure changes (basically everything outside of
>> >>> (website/www/site/content)
>> >>> (2) Sed script changes, and
>> >>> (3) Manual changes (everything not in (1) and (2)).
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you Robert. This makes it much easier. What is the source of the sed
>> > script? I am not sure why some of those lines are there. It would be much
>> > easier for us to comment on the script source if it is reviewable
>> > somewhere.
>>
>> I just gathered up common patterns as I was trying to go through and
>> review the files... Mostly it was an exercise in finding a compact
>> representation for the delta, not trying to be a perfect conversion.
>> (I do think in retrospect, if we do something like this again, it
>> would be preferable to commit a script that does the auto-conversion
>> (maybe even with some patch files for manual changes) both for ease of
>> reviewing and to avoid the stop-the-world situation we're in now. (I'm
>> still worried that some changes will get lost in the shuffle.)
