The new repo is reduced by 100MB: $ gh repo clone apache/pulsar -- --single-branch --depth=1 $ du -sh pulsar | sort -rh 53M pulsar
Best, tison. tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2022年12月29日周四 21:01写道： > Landed. > > Best, > tison. > > > tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2022年12月29日周四 17:51写道： > >> 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 >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>
