+1 I am fine with moving to git, but I would like it to be a different repo. Our current repo is at least 160MB already (which is a lot to download) but nothing compared the the web site that has lots and lots of things checked in (I estimate it at about 1.5GB on an older version I have locally)
- Bobby On Monday, July 31, 2017, 1:58:03 AM CDT, Xin Wang <[email protected]> wrote: +1 for moving to git. - Xin 2017-07-31 14:54 GMT+08:00 Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>: > Bump. I think this is worth to address soon, since some contributors > occasionally submit patches regarding documentations. > Personally SVN is no longer feel convenient to use. If we all feel the > same, let's change then. > > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > 2017년 7월 13일 (목) 오전 9:16, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > > Maybe we could try out Gitbox, though every committers should join their > > Github accounts to 'apache' group and enable 2FA. > > > > 2017년 7월 13일 (목) 오전 8:38, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > > >> Did we render webpage with asf-site branch? I didn't recognize it. > >> > >> Yes I meant separate git repository, like 'storm-site'. I'm happy I'm > not > >> the only one who feels inconvenient with SVN repo. > >> Would it better to initiate VOTE for this? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > >> > >> 2017년 7월 13일 (목) 오전 4:30, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>님이 작성: > >> > >>> We were using git before, then a year ago moved back to subversion to > >>> implement versioned documentation [1]. > >>> > >>> If we do decide to move back to git for this, I would recommend using a > >>> separate git repository so it doesn’t bloat our main code repository. > When > >>> generating javadoc for a new version, the svn commit to publish the > site > >>> can take around 20 minutes. > >>> > >>> -Taylor > >>> > >>> > On Jul 12, 2017, at 10:33 AM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Hi devs, > >>> > > >>> > I think we discussed moving website repository from SVN to GIT from a > >>> long > >>> > time ago, and we were OK on that, but action was not taken. > >>> > > >>> > Now I can see number of projects (Spark, Kafka, Beam, maybe more) are > >>> using > >>> > separate GIT repository for website. > >>> > Although we may still need to have version specific document (doc > >>> > directory) from code repository and copy Jekyll build result to > website > >>> > repo, anyone can look at the whole website code and craft pull > >>> requests to > >>> > help us. Git would be more convenient for ourselves than SVN (since > >>> we're > >>> > maintaining Storm from GIT). > >>> > > >>> > So I'd like to propose having a new repository 'storm-website' or > >>> > 'storm-site' with 'asf-site' as default branch, and move SVN contents > >>> to > >>> > GIT. > >>> > (Sure we need to ask INFRA for helping Storm website to be rendered > >>> from a > >>> > new GIT repo.) > >>> > > >>> > What do you think? > >>> > > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > >>> > >>> > -- Thanks, Xin
