Here are the related PRs: * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19100 * https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/348
Best, tison. tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2022年12月26日周一 21:45写道： > FYI tracking issue has been created: > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19064 > > I plan to finish it by the end of next month. > > Best, > tison. > > > tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2022年12月21日周三 11:33写道： > >> Thanks for your feedback! >> >> @Yu >> >> Thanks for sharing the previous thread. I looped in @michaeljmarshall >> here. >> >> @Jun >> >> It's possible but causes a new shortcoming: Now you should tell the >> contributor that the versioned docs are different from the NEXT version >> docs, lol. >> >> If our developers don't complain about these separated sources. Like @Asaf >> comment: >> >> > We can take, let's say, five features and see if they were actually >> done in >> > the same PR or separate PR. I guess that most documentation is actually >> > updated separately. Thus, from that perspective, maybe it’s not a con. >> >> Then we can do this refactor thoroughgoing. >> >> Also, if we keep, somehow several sources in the main repo. We still have >> shortcomings: >> >> 1. Duplicated CI workflows. >> 2. Cumbersome preview scaffolding in the main repo. >> >> ... which is the original purpose I'd like to overcome. >> >> Best, >> tison. >> >> >> Jun Ma <momoma...@hotmail.com> 于2022年12月21日周三 11:19写道： >> >>> Is it possible to come up with a compromised solution that has the pros >>> of both sides but minimizes the side effect? I'm thinking maybe it's not >>> necessary to sacrifice the current contribution process, as long as it can >>> greatly reduce the load of back-end actions and source size. For example, >>> if we only move out the versioned docs to the site repo but keep the source >>> of the NEXT docs in the pulsar repo, does this help to win a large >>> proportion of those pros when people can still contribute as usual? >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Jiaqi Shen <gleiphir2...@gmail.com> >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 17:15 >>> To: dev@pulsar.apache.org <dev@pulsar.apache.org> >>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Website precommit and move the source of docs to >>> the site repo >>> >>> +1, it makes sense to me. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jiaqi Shen >>> >>> >>> Yu <li...@apache.org> 于2022年12月19日周一 20:57写道： >>> >>> > Hi tison, >>> > >>> > Thanks for raising this up! >>> > >>> > Our community had a similar discussion previously and chose to "keep" >>> the >>> > doc repo stay in the Pulsar main repo at that time. >>> > >>> > [1] lists the pros and cons of "keep" and "not keep" solutions. >>> > >>> > I'm +0 on this proposal because I think the total scores of these two >>> > solutions are almost equal after weighing the pros and cons. >>> > >>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> > >>> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/mf2xwntfgn84dq78ksqv22jk3drq6xb3 >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 5:40 PM tison <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Thanks for your feedback! >>> > > >>> > > @Asaf >>> > > >>> > > > pre-commit >>> > > >>> > > I mean CI checks before merging a patch. Currently, we don't run >>> checks >>> > for >>> > > the content before merging them. This causes a series of syntax >>> errors >>> > and >>> > > broken links issues. If we hold docs under site2 folder in the main >>> repo >>> > > and then copied to the site repo, we have two places to build such CI >>> > > checks. What's worse, the checks for the main repo will be quite >>> > > cumbersome (that you do some if-else logic in the whole Pulsar CI >>> > > workflows, and do the sync sequentially in that workflow). >>> > > >>> > > If we hold the source of docs only in the site repo, we can extend >>> the >>> > > "precommit" workflow[1] I added recently to check for syntax errors >>> and >>> > > broken links also. >>> > > >>> > > > What does the apache/pulsar-site repo contain today? >>> > > >>> > > It should be covered by the documentation guide page[2]. It holds the >>> > > source of the official website and the user docs are synced from the >>> main >>> > > repo. >>> > > >>> > > > What content do we have today in the pulsar repo related to the >>> site? >>> > > >>> > > After issue-18014[3] is done, we host only user docs and some JSON >>> > metadata >>> > > in the main repo, which is synced by site_syncer.py[4]. >>> > > >>> > > > Can you explain that better? Are you saying pulsar source JARs >>> contain >>> > > the documentation? >>> > > >>> > > No. Source JARs contain only the Java files and necessary copyrights >>> > info. >>> > > The source release is, for example, >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> https://archive.apache.org/dist/pulsar/pulsar-2.10.2/apache-pulsar-2.10.2-src.tar.gz >>> > > , >>> > > which is extracted to 173M where 129M is occupied by the site2 >>> folder. >>> > > >>> > > This also affects when developers do git clone to clone the repo. >>> > > >>> > > > I mean, if you wish to document a bug fix in 2.9.x, for example, >>> would >>> > > you do it in the 2.9.x branch under site2/docs or >>> > > site2/website/versioned_docs/2.9.5? >>> > > >>> > > This is another question. Ideally, we should have hosted versioned >>> docs >>> > > associated with the specific version to that branch, like Apache >>> Flink >>> > does >>> > > as I mentioned[5]. But we do not, and actually the situation is we >>> update >>> > > the versioned docs under the master branch and thus, the docs can be >>> > synced >>> > > properly. >>> > > >>> > > See also the "Alternatives" section in the original email. >>> > > >>> > > @All >>> > > >>> > > Since we don't have objections to the possible cons listed above or >>> any >>> > new >>> > > ones, I'm going to create a tracking issue later this week and show >>> what >>> > > will be changed in PRs for further review. >>> > > >>> > > Best, >>> > > tison. >>> > > >>> > > [1] >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/blob/f7abc615d57d9846ed093922d24bff952dc0e838/.github/workflows/ci-precommit.yml >>> > > [2] >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/document-contribution/#source-repositories >>> > > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18014 >>> > > [4] >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/blob/f7abc615d57d9846ed093922d24bff952dc0e838/tools/pytools/lib/execute/site_syncer.py >>> > > [5] https://github.com/apache/flink/tree/master/docs >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> 于2022年12月19日周一 16:26写道： >>> > > >>> > > > +1 >>> > > > >>> > > > I support moving them to the website repo. >>> > > > >>> > > > Thanks, >>> > > > Penghui >>> > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 12:04 PM Yunze Xu >>> <y...@streamnative.io.invalid >>> > > >>> > > > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > +1. The most significant point to me is that we can preview all >>> the >>> > > > > content of the website without synchronizing contents from the >>> > > > > apache/pulsar repo. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Thanks, >>> > > > > Yunze >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 9:53 AM Li Li <urf...@apache.org> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > +1, That’s a good idea. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On Dec 16, 2022, at 07:07, tison <wander4...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Hi, >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > After several works around the build flow of our official >>> > > > > website[1][2][3], >>> > > > > > > the content sync and site build flow is debuggable and >>> > reproducible >>> > > > > now. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > However, compared to other Apache projects' websites' project >>> > > layouts >>> > > > > and >>> > > > > > > workflow, we still meet two challenges on the Pulsar site: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > 1. We don't have a pre-commit workflow for any >>> website-related >>> > > > changes. >>> > > > > > > Thus, we don't detect broken links or syntax errors when >>> > reviewing >>> > > > new >>> > > > > > > patches[4][5][6]. >>> > > > > > > 2. The website's content is two-level down in >>> > `site2/website-next` >>> > > > for >>> > > > > > > historical reasons, which is confusing for contributors. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > To overcome these two shortcomings, I propose the following: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > 1. Move the website's content to the root level, then we >>> have a >>> > > > > first-class >>> > > > > > > Docu&yarn-based JS project layout. It's more convenient and >>> > > familiar >>> > > > to >>> > > > > > > related developers. >>> > > > > > > 2. Host the source of docs in the site repo >>> (apache/pulsar-site) >>> > > > > instead of >>> > > > > > > under `site2` folder in the main repo and do content sync. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Below are the pros and cons: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Pros >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > 1. Obviously, we have the pre-commit workflow now. And since >>> we >>> > > host >>> > > > > the >>> > > > > > > source of docs in one repo, we don't have to run the >>> pre-commit >>> > > > > workflow in >>> > > > > > > two places, which can be quite cumbersome to implement. >>> > > > > > > 2. The size of the source release of the main repo can be >>> > reduced a >>> > > > > lot. >>> > > > > > > Currently, 63MB out of 140MB of the sources are taken by the >>> > site2 >>> > > > > folder, >>> > > > > > > which we can remove totally. In addition, we carry out >>> > > full-versioned >>> > > > > docs >>> > > > > > > every release. >>> > > > > > > 3. We can clean up a large portion of "integration" to debug >>> the >>> > > site >>> > > > > > > brittlely on the main repo[7] (etc.) and redundant >>> contribution >>> > > > > guide[8]. >>> > > > > > > This way, when updating docs, we can preview the result in >>> one >>> > repo >>> > > > > instead >>> > > > > > > of actually doing the sync on the fly. In addition, this >>> > > integration >>> > > > > blocks >>> > > > > > > we move the website content to the top level since it makes >>> > strong >>> > > > > > > assumptions about the relative layout. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Cons >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > The most significant con is that we cannot update the code >>> and >>> > docs >>> > > > in >>> > > > > one >>> > > > > > > patch against apache/pulsar now. You must open a new pull >>> request >>> > > to >>> > > > > > > apache/pulsar-site, cross-reference each other and manage the >>> > merge >>> > > > > order >>> > > > > > > (synchronization). >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Alternatives: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > To resolve the versioned docs issue, an alternative is to >>> host >>> > only >>> > > > the >>> > > > > > > user docs along with each version, like Flink does[9]. But it >>> > both >>> > > > > detaches >>> > > > > > > from the Docu framework and requires significant development >>> > > efforts. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Since it can explicitly change the development flow (that >>> is, you >>> > > > > should >>> > > > > > > now update docs separately), I am starting this discussion >>> here >>> > to >>> > > > > reach >>> > > > > > > for your feedback. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Welcome to leave your comments! >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Best, >>> > > > > > > tison. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > [1] https://pulsar.apache.org/ >>> > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site >>> > > > > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18014 >>> > > > > > > [4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/17599 >>> > > > > > > [5] >>> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17863#discussion_r990174850 >>> > > > > > > [6] >>> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17853#discussion_r991803704 >>> > > > > > > [7] >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/b1f9e351fa4d5aba197d33cfc0c536516b55b61f/site2/website/start.sh >>> > > > > > > [8] >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/document-preview/#preview-documentation-changes >>> > > > > > > [9] https://github.com/apache/flink/tree/master/docs >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>
