Seems like everyone is in favor of the separate repo. I'll request one early next week. I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2507 to handle the first parts of the task of getting the new repo up and running.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> 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? > > > > > > > > > >
