Good to see mailing list activity. Note that #2 and #3 are not exclusive. The asf-site branch is currently set to serve the site, it does not need to contain the source.
I would also put the site sources into the main branch and then put the generated site into the asf-site branch, so that source and generated code remain separate. You probably want to keep master empty until your existing code base gets imported and start with a separate branch till then. On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:13 PM Anbu Cheeralan <[email protected]> wrote: > I prefer #3 that will keep the documentation in-sync with the code. > > On 2019/01/24 21:27:39, Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > Just summarizing how the current project documentation is setup and then > > use this thread to discuss how we want to proceed. Its based on Jekyll > and > > markup.To build Hudi docs, you just need to install gem/ruby set and spin > > up Jekyll. > > https://idratherbewriting.com/documentation-theme-jekyll/ has > > instructions. > > > > We have a few options to manage docs. > > > > 1. Separate repo (away from source code) > > 2. Special branch along with code (asf-site branch here > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-hudi ) > > 3. Checked into a top level docs folder on all branches (current > approach) > > > > I vote for #3. I have do #2 on a previous open source project and the > code > > kept diverging from docs. > > > > What do you all think? > > > > Nishith, can you confirm you are taking the lead on this? > > > > Thanks > > Vinoth > > >
