I agree with Justin. This micro-feature is intended as a github widget, which
causes the top-level README to give all viewers an immediate flag whether the
build is healthy or not. It does not belong in a rendered site-book.
Removing the widget during site-book build, can be done with a one-line
addition to HREF_REWRITE_LIST in:
https://github.com/apache/metron/blob/master/site-book/bin/generate-md.sh#L75
Recommend not worrying about historical site-books (they naturally obsolesce
out of the “dist/release” area).
Cheers,
--Matt
On 10/23/17, 6:38 AM, "Justin Leet" <[email protected]> wrote:
I'd argue it shouldn't be in the site-book at all. Presumably we aren't
releasing while Travis is broken, so it's not useful information for anyone
looking at docs. It just carries over from the main README. Seems like we
should just scrub it when we do the other fixes to the READMEs to make them
suitable for site-book. At that point it's just gone entirely. from the
next release.
Doesn't solve the problem of prior releases (assuming we care enough to do
anything).
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:32 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Today I was poking around the Metron site and documentation, and I noticed
> that the site-book's travis build status image is pointing to master for
> all of our releases. We should probably update the release process
> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Release+Process> to
> pin
> this to the specific release.
>
> I will happily handle the documentation update but I wanted to ask, what
> should it be pointing to? Repointing is incredibly straightforward
> <https://travis-ci.org/apache/metron/branches>, but I'm not sure would be
> more appropriate to use - the release branches (e.g. Metron_0.4.1), or
> the release tags (e.g. apache-metron-0.4.1-release)? I'm not clear on
> their specific uses in our environment. In reviewing our current process,
> it appears that we _could_ use either.
>
> I also wanted to ask, does anybody think that this should get fixed
> historically? I think that this might be an excessive amount of hassle,
> but I wanted to put it out there since I'm not intimately familiar with
> what we'd need to do in order to clean this up.
>
> Jon
> --
>
> Jon
>
