The single repository is from our time as an incubating project. Now we can act like a grown up project 😜
This email encrypted by tiny buttons & fat thumbs, beta voice recognition, and autocorrect on my iPhone. > On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Anilkumar Gingade <aging...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > +1 > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Joey McAllister <jmcallis...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >> +1 to Karen's suggestion of moving the website to its own repo. >> >> +1 to Dan's suggestion scripting the website build/publishing with a CI >> system based on commits. >> >>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:38 PM Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed >> to >>> include docs that are generated from the last release, but the site >>> instructions say the site should be generated from develop. A separate >> repo >>> with a single branch will probably reduce confusion. >>> >>> We also need to script the website building and publishing, and ideally >>> have the publishing done by a CI system based on commits. It looks like >>> some other projects are talking about doing this with jenkins jenkins - >> see >>> INFRA-10722 for example. >>> >>> -Dan >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller <kmil...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> >>>> I think that the website content that is currently in geode/geode-site >>>> ought to be moved to its own repository. The driving reason for this >> is >>>> that changes to the website occur on a different schedule than code >>>> releases. We often want to add a new committer's name or a new >>>> event, and these items are not associated with sw releases. A new >> website >>>> release that comes from the develop branch may have commits that >>>> should not yet be made public. >>>> >>>> Are there downsides to separating the website content into its own >> repo? >>>> >>> >>
