On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:50 AM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <aizha...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Thanks for the writeup Ahmet.
>
> My bias is to move forward and merge the PR. After this, we'll review the
> outcome, and ensure that all the content is there. Nam will help us with
> that.
> The reason that I'd like to move forward and merge what we have now - is
> that if we don't do that, the work done so far will be lost.
> We'll make sure to stage the website in its current state, and use that as
> reference/archive to ensure all the content have been moved.
>
> Is this reasonable to everyone?
>
This is reasonable to me. I agree with your reasons.
What do others think?
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 7:07 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:33 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
>> aizha...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> > 1) Currently, the main blocker for merging is Staging Test Failures.
>>>>
>>>> That and finishing the review. (Is someone tracking/coordinating this?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am coordinating the work on the failed tests, but I would need other
>>> committer's help to perform the review. @Ahmet, could you help us
>>> prioritize the review for this PR?
>>>
>>
>> The problem is there are too many manual changes. Reviewing this change
>> in this form will require a large effort. I do not think I can interrupt
>> other projects to prioritize reviews on this PR. IMO, we have a few options:
>>
>> - PR to be restructured in the format suggested in this thread. A commit
>> for infrastructure changes from Jekyll to hugo. A second commit for a
>> script that will convert the majority of the content. A third commit for
>> the execution of the script. And a fourth commit for the additional manual
>> content changes. If Nam can get to this form, people on this thread
>> myself/Robert/Pablo/Brian can review the changes.
>> - Another option is, we can accept that we already invested in this
>> transition and overall this is a good change, and merge the PR more or less
>> in its current form (with tests fixed and open comments addressed) even
>> though it has issues. And then overtime fix the issues we encounter. There
>> was already some amount of review and visual comparisons, we risk losing
>> some recent content changes but I am assuming this will not be much. If Nam
>> can commit to compare two sites after a merge, fixing the majority of the
>> delta, this might be a viable option.
>>
>> Another thing we can do, we can archive/store a read-only copy of the
>> current website in an "archive" url temporarily instead of completely
>> deleting it. It will give us a baseline for a while to go back to the old
>> content and move any missing data. (And maybe, someone can come up with an
>> innovative way to compare the textual content of both sites.) A note on the
>> stop world approach, I believe we are already failing on that with merge
>> conflicts showing up on the PR. It will be better for us to complete the
>> transition as soon as possible. Fixing after the initial merge might be a
>> simpler task, especially if we can archive the old site.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> > 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.)
>>>>
>>>
