If we change ORIGIN_REPO[1] to point to a new pulsar-site repos. Then with the correct .asf.yaml file changes we can remove the asf-site branch. I see that the publish is run from this workflow [2] Let me think about a PR to make the move.
Regards, Dave [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/7a34cebca25e6e584e8b758e6bd58c1c4fe8a58e/site2/tools/publish-website.sh#L25 [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/.github/workflows/ci-pulsar-website-build.yaml > On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:31 PM, Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/tools/publish-website.sh > > > -- > Matteo Merli > <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:29 PM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Show me where the code is that commits to the asf-site branch. >> >>> On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I agree with that. >>> >>> I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the >>> original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the >>> same PR as the code change. That doesn't have to be the case always, >>> especially for larger multi-PR changes, but it makes it easier to do >>> quick corrections to the docs. >>> >>> I think the bigger problem here is to get rid of the generated site >>> HTML stuff from the main pulsar repo. >>> >>> -- >>> Matteo Merli >>> <matteo.me...@gmail.com> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:16 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dave, >>>> Having a new repo will make it harder for developers to contribute >>>> documentation. >>>> >>>> Usually engineers do it like and do not have time to write docs. >>>> >>>> If we ask them to create two PRs only to add, for instance, a new >>>> configuration option, then it would be somehow a pain. >>>> >>>> I am not saying that we shouldn't go this way, but it would be kind of a >>>> pain for someone and we need to ear more voices. >>>> >>>> Enrico >>>> >>>> Il Mer 17 Nov 2021, 19:28 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> ha scritto: >>>> >>>>> I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the >>>>> developers who are making documentation changes. >>>>> >>>>> - Sijie >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi - >>>>>> >>>>>> There are two efforts happening in the community around website refresh. >>>>>> >>>>>> (1) Docusaurus upgrades. >>>>>> (2) New web design. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is an effort to eliminate all the extra commits in the asf-site >>>>>> branch of the main repository. In that thread I proposed a new repository >>>>>> for the website. >>>>>> >>>>>> We can then discuss migration and development both on this mailing list >>>>>> and as PRs and Issues in that repository. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we want to have a PIP process here or can we be less formal? I think >>>>>> that PRs. Issues, and simple commits can be sufficient. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless there are objections I will create a new repository - pulsar-site >>>>>> on Friday in 72 hours. >>>>>> ‘ >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>
