On Sat, Sep 23, 2023, at 02:30, Apache wrote:
> You have to be kidding me. I now need to use Docker to build the web
> site? And that is somehow simpler?
The actual build is then done by GitHub Actions. And yes, I consider it a lot
simpler to run one docker command (I even have a shell script for this) to
check and let actions do the rest.
You can see it in action on the privacy website.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On Sep 22, 2023, at 2:03 PM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023, at 22:08, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> Personally, I hate all these tools. I picked JBake simply because I
>>> could figure out how to run it with a simple Maven command.
>>>
>>> I really don’t see how you can make it any simpler by changing the
>>> tooling. If you look at the instructions they are all git commands
>>> except for “mvn install”.
>>>
>>> The current web site supports markdown and asciidoc.
>>>
>>> I am not in favor of changing the tooling for the sake of changing the
>>> tooling. I am in favor of changing the tooling if there is some major
>>> tangible benefit. I have always wanted to use tooling that would let us
>>> edit the pages in a GUI editor similar to like Wix or Squarespace do. I
>>> despise having to write things in Markdown or Asiciidoc and then run a
>>> tool so I can preview what it is going to look like.
>>>
>>> In other words, I want the ease of editing and maintaining the web site
>>> to drive the tooling decision, not the other way around.
>>
>> Currently, there are 10 steps listed for deploying the website.
>> I do "git commit && push"
>>
>> Currently, we have to install JBake
>> In my scenario, I use Docker.
>>
>> As an example, for the privacy website to check:
>> docker run --rm -p 4000:4000 --mount type=bind,src=$PWD,dst=/root/build
>> --mount type=volume,dst=/root/build/node_modules -it
>> apache/privacy_apache_org serve --watch --incremental
>>
>> There are significant benefits in this, such as speed of deployment, support
>> of infra, etc pp.
>> I don't see any reason to stick with JBake.
>>
>> I understand you don't like static site generators, but in this case, a less
>> frequently updated website, I see benefits: easy blogging support and ASF
>> support. Additionally, Docker support.
>>
>> There is also GUI support for Jekyll and Hugo, but I don't like it. There is
>> none for JBake to my knowledge.
>>
>> I an not changing the tooling because I like Jekyll better, but because it
>> is a standard, I have autodeploy tools ready and it generally is better
>> understood than JBake.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>>> On Sep 22, 2023, at 11:47 AM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> the current landing page:
>>>> https://logging.apache.org/
>>>>
>>>> is done with JBake. We have rather complicated instructions on how to
>>>> re-generate the landing page:
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LOGGING/Managing+the+Logging+Services+Web+Sites
>>>>
>>>> The Infra team recommends Pelican or Jekyll to create these kinds of
>>>> pages. I have in-depth knowledge of Jekyll and would like to propose
>>>> migrating the current landing page to Jekyll.
>>>>
>>>> The benefits:
>>>>
>>>> - autodeploy of our changes
>>>> - great support of blogging (I'd like to create one)
>>>> - easy handling and supported by Infra
>>>> - writing content in Markdown
>>>>
>>>> I am aware that we have a discussion open on how to do documentation in
>>>> the future. I would still like to migrate the page asap and - if deemed
>>>> necessary - touch it again later.
>>>>
>>>> So far, I will leave all design/content intact until migrated, and come
>>>> back with additional changes (as the blog) after migration to be discussed
>>>> separately.
>>>>
>>>> If there are no objections, I will start with this move sometime next week.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> The Apache Software Foundation
>>>> V.P., Data Privacy
