>> Why are you pissed? I am sorry if I would be the reason > > 1. I indicated I didn’t want changing to Jekyl to be the reason for > changing to Jekyll. So far, that appears to be the reason. I thought > you mentioned something about getting CI to work but the current > process could have been automated as well.
No, that's not the reason. Switching to Jekyll would mean easy updates, data files, SCSS support. > 2. Switching to Jekyll seems to have changed the target directory with > dire consequences. As I stated, my experience with the ASF “CMS” is > that you can “layer” web sites on top of each other by using sub-dirs > of the content directory. I don’t recall the details as it has been > several years since I migrated the web sites from the old CMS to the > Git tooling provided by infra. But what I did was deliberate and on > purpose. The output directory was changed. I took a lot of time (I am not used to Python) to send 2 PRs to Infra: https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-p6/pull/1704 https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-p6/pull/1700 To fix the output directory situation. Both were accepted. The output directory is now working again, as described in the docs. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=INFRA&title=git+-+.asf.yaml+features However, for unknown reasons, the webserver still does not recognize the fix. That's why I asked for help and eventually created a ticket for Infra to help return to the old status: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-25097 > 3. The final consequence is that it seems that we must now use > logging-log4j2.staged.apache.org/log4j/2.x > <http://logging-log4j2.staged.apache.org/log4j/2.x>. Since staging is > supposed to exactly match live this means the live url now has to be > logging-log4j2.apache.org/log4j/2.x > <http://logging-log4j2.apache.org/log4j/2.x>. That is unacceptable. I agree this is unacceptable, but it is not the case that we must now use this. I am working towards using the same system as before, using the same URLs except, instead of jbake, with Jekyll. I am sorry that I ran into bugs I could not control, but I am not enforcing or promoting a change of URLs just because there are bugs. I want it to be "as before". Piotr's proposal contains ideas that have nothing to do with my tooling change. You could decline it if you wish, without any effect of the switch to Jekyll. To summarize: - I want to replace jbake with jekyll - I don't want to change anything on the URLs - I run into Infra bugs, that I fixed myself - I now look at a web server mess, that I can't control, and wait for Infra support Once Infra helps to sort out the webservers, it should be exactly as before. Again, I apologize for opening this discussion, it was not my intent. My intent was to move to a tool that is easier to use (in my opinion), and that helps me to promote log4j further. It is not the fault of the tooling that the web server has that hiccup. I hope you are less pissed now, that you know that we are on the same page. To be precise, I am pretty much stressed that the docs told me "it would work" when I had to find out "it doesn't". Kind regards, Christian
