On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 12:38, Gavin McDonald <gmcdon...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On 2021/04/15 09:10:50, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 00:47, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 16:56, Gavin McDonald <gmcdon...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Commons devs. > > > > > > > > As you know, the CMS is going away, we have been on hardware that could > > > > fail at any time, and this really has been dragging on longer than > > > > anticipated. So, we are accelerating the removal of any CMS related > > > > content. > > > > > > > > Previously you indicated that the project was no longer using the CMS. > > > > This is true in part, but there are still areas we need to move you off > > > > of. > > > > > > > > 1. https://cms.apache.org/commons/ - We intend to teardown this site > > > > shortly. As you indicate you no longer use the CMS, I see no issue with > > > > this. > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > 2. > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/buildbot/aegis/buildmaster/master1/projects/commons.conf > > > > - This refers to cms-site, but does not look like it actually uses the > > > > CMS, is this your new site build generation? Just to confirm and I'll > > > > leave it as is, or let me know if it is outdated and due for removal > > > > > > Yes, it is used to build the top-level Commons site. > > > > > > > 3. https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/production/commons/ and > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/staging/commons/trunk/ - > > > > Both of these are still on what we refer to as the 'SVN area of the > > > > CMS'. We have around a dozen projects that I know that have re-worked > > > > their non-cms website builds to still use these areas for publishing > > > > their sites. It too, is deprecated and going away. We have a > > > > replacement SVN area in an adjacent part of the Infra tree. > > > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/sites/$project is the new location. > > > > We will need to perform an svn move to this new location for you. To > > > > allow you to prepare please consider this email as 30 days notice. > > > > > > Why are those SVN locations deprecated? > > > > > > This will mean a *lot* of work for the Commons project, as most > > > component POMs have a reference to the URL, and there are probably > > > other references as well that will need to be changed. There are about > > > 50 active components, as well as several dormant or sandbox ones > > > > Also, the POM changes can only really be done after the SVN tree has been > > moved > > Only planning can be done in advance. > > Thats fine, get a branch or local checkout ready to go and let me know when > it is > ready.
No idea what you mean by that. Note that each component now has its own Git repository, so if you are referring t > > > > Further, any developers with local workspaces will need to update > > these to the new URL. > > Yes > > > > > What are the arrangements for the staging areas? > > The CMS supported staging. .asf.yaml over on Git supports staging. > There is no replacement staging area for the CMS. > > Please explain what unsupported staging system you are talking about? I took your email to imply that both websites/production and websites/staging were moving to sites/commons, but it was not obvious how that would work. So I asked what was happening to the staging SVN tree. > > Do these go under the individual project site directories, or elsewhere? > > > > I accept that the CMS build system has maintenance issues and has to > > be phased out, but that does not affect all projects. > > So why cause additional work for projects that no longer use the CMS? > > I repeat, projects hopped on to the SVN area of the CMS , that is unsupported > and should not have been allowed to happen, it was a workaround by projects > undocumented to support mainly javadocs etc from what I gather. It was never obvious to me that the use of websites/production and websites/staging was contingent on use of the CMS. > You caused the additional work yourselves in the beginning by not fully > removing > from the CMS and all its infrastructure. At the time I asked for help with migrating to a simple build-bot build, but there was no feedback from Infra, except to say that build-bot was still supported. So I removed the CMS software from commons, and left everything else as was, as that was the simplest approach that I believed met the requirements. Indeed the proposed new location of https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/sites/$project did not exist at the time. > Infra wants to clear out that area as part of migrating away and provides a > new space. That's the part I disagree with - is it really necessary to rename the SVN directory? Would keeping the old tree make Infra's job harder? It certainly causes issues for Commons. > > > > > > Any questions, let me know. > > > > > > Is it *really* necessary for the files to be moved? > > You have asked this before, yes. If you do not agree with the > the way Infrastructure is doing things, by all means escalate. > > > > > > > > Gavin McDonald (ASF Infra) > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
