Yeah it's less critical than for our codebase, obviously. There's not much need to go back'n forth in time, in the history, for the website. So I think it's okay if we have to drop the history. There have 44 contributors to the documentation, but a majority was on very small changes, like typos, new user groups, and such. Not big bang changes to the website.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: > One question I have. How important is the git history of the website? Is a > clean slate copy of all the files to the new repo acceptable? I'd never > want to do this for code but is it less of an issue for the site? Note: > this doesn't affect user guide doco which is versioned in the code repo > along with the code - I'm talking about the fairly static pages on the site > (downloads, events, mailing-lists, etc.). > > Thanks, Paul. > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> One of the action items we've had since joining Apache is to move our >> website onto Apache infrastructure. We've made changes to our release >> process to make it easier to publish a new release's documentation onto the >> site and we are finally getting around to actually moving the site. This >> will hopefully happen over the next few weeks and our goal will be to make >> it as seamless as possible. >> >> More details will follow - this is just a heads-up for anyone planning to >> make changes to the site for the next little while. Probably best to >> pre-announce any such changes and I can give advice as to which repo(s) you >> should target. We might need to make changes in two places for a very short >> period. >> >> Cheers, Paul. >> > > -- Guillaume Laforge Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
