Thanks for clarifying. We have not run into an issue were we actually have needed to fix the docs for an already released version, not saying that it will not happen in the future though as the docs are not perfect. But updating the docs to describe a feature that someone is working on is a much more common situation in my opinion, so if we do need to update docs for a release that we already did, then it probably would involve a lot of applying the same changes to a number of different places.
- Bobby On Monday, August 7, 2017, 9:09:23 AM CDT, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote: Maybe I was not clear. I meant removing 'releases' directory from storm-site repo, not storm repo, given that we have duplicated docs between twos. If we can get rid of that we can reduce the size greatly, but as I stated from another thread, it may need to decouple main docs and release docs. One thing I'm considering is fixing doc for version which is already released. Assuming we had to fix doc for 1.1.1 (already released), which doc we need to fix? Only 1.x-branch and 1.1.x-branch in storm repo? Or we need to store docs in releases directory as it is and fix it as well? 2017년 8월 7일 (월) 오후 10:52, Bobby Evans <[email protected]>님이 작성: > Please don't remove the .md docs from the storm repo. Those docs document > the current build. Things that are common and almost never change we can > move to a separate repo. But things that change from one release to > another should stay, because they show what the current build is like, and > having the docs in a separate repo from the code means that the code is > going to change all the time and the docs are going to get out of date. > > > - Bobby > > > On Monday, August 7, 2017, 6:14:40 AM CDT, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> > wrote: > > FYI: I've exported SVN repo of website and pushed to 'asf-site' branch of > GIT repo. > > https://github.com/apache/storm-site > > Please note that 'content' directory will be used for serving website. > (INFRA guided me to use this directory) > Need to update README.md for the new instruction. > > Btw, this is still too way heavy, lots of files occupying huge space (2.3g) > making git too way slow as same as svn. Better to reduce some more > contents, maybe removing source docs (md files) which are also available in > storm repo. > > - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > 2017년 8월 7일 (월) 오전 11:55, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > > FYI: storm-site git repository is created, and according to notification > > mail, github mirror will be created in a day. > > > > I filed another INFRA issues to associate website to the new repository. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/agent/INFRA/issue/INFRA-14810 > > > > - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > 2017년 8월 2일 (수) 오전 8:09, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > > >> FYI: I just take a step to this, but blocked at creating git repository > >> in reporeq.apache.org. > >> > >> Just filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14765. In that > >> issue I also asked how to serve website with non-main project > repository. > >> > >> 2017년 7월 31일 (월) 오후 10:56, Bobby Evans <[email protected]>님이 > >> 작성: > >> > >>> +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 > >> > >>
