[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10295?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15960798#comment-15960798
 ] 

Steve Rowe commented on SOLR-10295:
-----------------------------------

bq. The GitPubSub sounds very attractive, if that means we can have a 
lightweight job in Jenkins that only builds the refGuide on each commit.

If we want (near-)immediate builds triggered by commits, we'll have to use a 
different Jenkins machine than the {{lucene}} VM, because it has only one 
executor; if I understand Jenkins' model correctly, currently running jobs (and 
queued jobs too, I think) will take precedence over newly triggered jobs.

bq. I think we should attempt to have all versions of the guide in the same 
place. Alternatively, I guess it would be fine if the master/branch_6x versions 
were either linked or redirected from the CMS /solr/guide to the location in 
Jenkins...

Once we have a stable *released* online ref guide, I don't think we should be 
referring regular users to dev versions of the online ref guide; for 
contributors and committers, sure, e.g. from the HowToContribute wiki page.

> Decide online location for Ref Guide HTML pages
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-10295
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10295
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>          Components: documentation
>            Reporter: Cassandra Targett
>
> One of the biggest decisions we need to make is where to put the new Solr Ref 
> Guide. Confluence at least had the whole web-hosting bits figured out; we 
> have to figure that out on our own.
> An obvious (maybe only to me) choice is to integrate the Ref Guide with the 
> Solr Website. However, due to the size of the Solr Ref Guide (nearly 200 
> pages), I believe trying to publish it solely with existing CMS tools will 
> create problems similar to those described in the Lucene ReleaseTodo when it 
> comes to publishing the Lucene/Solr javadocs (see 
> https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo#Website_.2B-.3D_javadocs).
> A solution exists already, and it's what is done for the javadocs. From the 
> above link:
> {quote}
> The solution: skip committing javadocs to the source tree, then staging, then 
> publishing, and instead commit javadocs directly to the production tree. 
> Ordinarily this would be problematic, because the CMS wants to keep the 
> production tree in sync with the staging tree, so anything it finds in the 
> production tree that's not in the staging tree gets nuked. However, the CMS 
> has a built-in mechanism to allow exceptions to the 
> keep-production-in-sync-with-staging rule: extpaths.txt.
> {quote}
> This solution (for those who don't know already) is to provide a static text 
> file (extpaths.txt) that includes the javadoc paths that should be presented 
> in production, but which won't exist in CMS staging environments. This way, 
> we can publish HTML files directly to production and they will be preserved 
> when the staging-production trees are synced.
> The rest of the process would be quite similar to what is documented in the 
> ReleaseTodo in sections following the link above - use SVN to update the CMS 
> production site and update extpaths.txt properly. We'd do this in the 
> {{solr}} section of the CMS obviously, and not the {{lucene}} section.
> A drawback to this approach is that we won't have a staging area to view the 
> Guide before publication. Files would be generated and go to production 
> directly. We may want to put a process in place to give some additional 
> confidence that things look right first (someone's people.apache.org 
> directory? a pre-pub validation script that tests...something...?), and agree 
> on what we'd be voting on when a vote to release comes up. However, the CMS 
> is pretty much the only option that I can think of...other ideas are welcome 
> if they might work.
> We also need to agree on URL paths that make sense, considering we'll have a 
> new "site" for each major release - something like 
> {{http://lucene.apache.org/solr/ref-guide/6_1}} might work? Other thoughts 
> are welcome on this point also.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to