Excellent. Thanks. On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote:
> Published the 3.2.2-SNAPSHOT docs: > > http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.2.2-SNAPSHOT/reference/ > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > ah - gotcha. yes - we bind the documentation to a release. typically we > > wouldn't go back and update the published documentation for 3.2.2 so any > > doc changes after 3.2.2 would be part of 3.2.3. I guess there are few > > caveats: > > > > 1. We do publish SNAPSHOT docs routinely: http://tinkerpop. > > apache.org/docs/3.1.4-SNAPSHOT/reference/ - i had trouble with the > > 3.2.3-SNAPSHOT the last time i tried to publish it so it's not up there > > apparently. The "future" release docs are usually published right after > we > > officially do a releaase. My problem with 3.2.3-SNAPSHOT is resolved now > so > > I probably should publish. We also do a final publish of SNAPSHOT right > > before release so those should in theory they should be the same as what > we > > ultimately release. Anyway, you can always reference those docs as > needed - > > we don't delete the old SNAPSHOT docs after release. > > > > 2. There have been a couple of occasions where we have "fixed" something > > bad in release documents after release. If there was something really > > messed up that was sending people down a really bad track, I suppose we > > might try to get it cleaned up. > > > > 3. We have referenced SNAPSHOT docs from the main web site. For example, > > it happens when we write a tutorial that is generally pertinent to the > > current release and we don't want to wait for release to get it in front > of > > the eyes of users. > > > > HTH, > > > > Stephen > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Robert Dale <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Main website issue fixed and live: > >> - TINKERPOP-1398 > >> > >> Master branch committed but pending publish: > >> - https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/362 > >> - TINKERPOP-1394 > >> - TINKERPOP-1396 > >> > >> I imagine that things like the download page are instantaneously live > from > >> the main website filesystem. Some of the other generated content from > the > >> git repo requires extra process to be published. Will the generated > >> content from the git repo always be dependent on the release process? > So > >> for the latest fixes pending publish, they won't be published until > 3.2.2 > >> is released. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > I'm sorry, i'm not sure I follow what you're asking. Could you please > >> > clarify? > >> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Robert Dale <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Stephen, will the document-driven portion (i.e. master branch > >> asciidocs, > >> > > e.g. recipes) of the website always depend on the release process? > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Dylan Millikin < > >> > [email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Yeah I think we can be incremental about this. > >> > > > > >> > > > - add the site to /site as is. This way even if it's a pain people > >> can > >> > > > contribute > >> > > > - make a publish-site.sh > >> > > > - add some form of template system (probably to publish-site.sh) > >> > > > - finalize with documentation? < or add it as we go > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Stephen Mallette < > >> > [email protected]> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > There's not a lot of pages - true - though when i wear the > release > >> > > > manager > >> > > > > hat i have grumble every time i have to go through all the links > >> > trying > >> > > > to > >> > > > > get it right. invariably i make a change, then copy/paste to the > >> > others > >> > > > > only to find i misspelled something or missed a link. it just > >> sucks. > >> > > > That > >> > > > > said, i'm open to the idea of moving the site as-is to the git > >> repo > >> > > > under a > >> > > > > /site directory. that would be the first step to doing the > static > >> > site > >> > > > > generation anyway. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > if it doesn't hinge on static site generation, then perhaps it > >> should > >> > > > hinge > >> > > > > on a little script or something that will bin/publish-site.sh - > >> that > >> > > > would > >> > > > > be nice. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Robert Dale <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Stephen, please correct me where I'm wrong, but after > mirroring > >> the > >> > > > > > site and removing docs and javadocs since these are generated, > >> it > >> > > > > > would appear that there are only 7 html files to the website. > >> It's > >> > > not > >> > > > > > clear to me that at this point the effort of creating or > moving > >> to > >> > a > >> > > > > > template engine is worth the effort. I would rather see the > >> static > >> > > > > > site as-is move to version control sooner rather than later > and > >> not > >> > > > > > hinge upon generation. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Dylan Millikin < > >> > > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > The groovy template engine could work just fine. > >> > > > > > > FYI : > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3793880/lightweight- > >> > > > > template-engine-in-java > >> > > > > > > There might be a few interested template engines there as > >> well. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Stephen Mallette < > >> > > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Yeah - i'm not so good with the sed to the awk to the grep > or > >> > > > whatever > >> > > > > > so > >> > > > > > >> if it can be that simple that would be awesome. The groovy > >> > > template > >> > > > > > engine > >> > > > > > >> might be another option. Something like that would work > easy > >> > > enough > >> > > > > too > >> > > > > > I > >> > > > > > >> would guess. I really don't think we need much more than > that > >> > > right > >> > > > > now. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Organizationally, I think we should have a /site directory > at > >> > the > >> > > > root > >> > > > > > of > >> > > > > > >> the repo to house the images/html template content and then > >> have > >> > > it > >> > > > > > >> generate into root /target/site from bin/generate-site.sh. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Dylan Millikin < > >> > > > > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > Hmm sounds like what we would want would be a template > >> engine > >> > > that > >> > > > > > would > >> > > > > > >> > help us build the static site. > >> > > > > > >> > If all we need are includes that put together html > partials > >> > > > > > >> > (headers/footers) we could make our own. It could be as > >> simple > >> > > as > >> > > > > > using > >> > > > > > >> sed > >> > > > > > >> > in bin/generate-web-site.sh > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Stephen Mallette < > >> > > > > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > yes - static html/css and it sucks a bit because we > don't > >> > have > >> > > > any > >> > > > > > >> re-use > >> > > > > > >> > > going on there. so if we have to change a menu or > >> something > >> > it > >> > > > > means > >> > > > > > >> > > changing it on every page in the site. would be nice to > >> have > >> > > > some > >> > > > > > >> > re-usable > >> > > > > > >> > > headers/footers and such. i looked into some static > site > >> > > > > generators > >> > > > > > a > >> > > > > > >> > while > >> > > > > > >> > > back, but they all seemed like they did too much. > maybe i > >> > > didn't > >> > > > > > know > >> > > > > > >> > what > >> > > > > > >> > > to look for. > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Dylan Millikin < > >> > > > > > >> [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > How is the current site structured? Is it just HTML > and > >> > CSS > >> > > > > files? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Stephen Mallette < > >> > > > > > >> [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > no - we don't have one for the main web site. i've > >> > wanted > >> > > to > >> > > > > > >> suggest > >> > > > > > >> > > that > >> > > > > > >> > > > > we change that though and generate the main web > site > >> > from > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > >> github > >> > > > > > >> > > > repo. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > in that way we could easily accept pull requests > and > >> > > such. i > >> > > > > > don't > >> > > > > > >> > > think > >> > > > > > >> > > > we > >> > > > > > >> > > > > want to take a full asciidoc approach and the web > >> site > >> > > > > > generation > >> > > > > > >> > would > >> > > > > > >> > > > > probably stay separate from the doc generation, but > >> it > >> > > would > >> > > > > be > >> > > > > > >> nice > >> > > > > > >> > if > >> > > > > > >> > > > we > >> > > > > > >> > > > > could bin/generate-web-site.sh for a local build of > >> that > >> > > > that > >> > > > > > thing > >> > > > > > >> > > which > >> > > > > > >> > > > > could then be published to the apache svn repo. > >> anyone > >> > > else > >> > > > > like > >> > > > > > >> that > >> > > > > > >> > > > idea? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > if so, how would it best be done? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Robert Dale < > >> > > > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Is there a git repo for this and the main > >> website? I > >> > > > would > >> > > > > > like > >> > > > > > >> to > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > make pull requests to fix some things. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Stephen > Mallette < > >> > > > > > >> > > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > The download page is now "live" > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Stephen > >> Mallette < > >> > > > > > >> > > > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I assume everyone is cool with making the > >> Download > >> > > Page > >> > > > > > live > >> > > > > > >> at > >> > > > > > >> > > this > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > point > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> as there's been no other feedback in the last > >> few > >> > > days. > >> > > > > > I'll > >> > > > > > >> > > > probably > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > make > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> some adjustments to the web site tomorrow to > >> bring > >> > it > >> > > > > > online > >> > > > > > >> > > > publicly. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Stephen > >> Mallette < > >> > > > > > >> > > > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> I updated the downloads page some more: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> + tweaked the date format a bit to "really" > >> match > >> > > the > >> > > > > > rest of > >> > > > > > >> > the > >> > > > > > >> > > > > site > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> (which is still inconsistent in other places > >> like > >> > > > > > changelog - > >> > > > > > >> > > dah) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> + added a "verifying downloads" section which > >> > talks > >> > > > > about > >> > > > > > >> > > > > GPG/PGP/etc. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> http://tinkerpop.apache.org/downloads.html > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Stephen > >> Mallette > >> > < > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Good feedback Robert/Jason. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Updated: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> http://tinkerpop.apache.org/downloads.html > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Added documentation and included some > >> descriptors > >> > > to > >> > > > > > current > >> > > > > > >> > > > > releases. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Didn't change the date format for now - > that's > >> > the > >> > > > > > format we > >> > > > > > >> > use > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > everywhere > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> around "release" so didn't want to muck with > >> that > >> > > at > >> > > > > this > >> > > > > > >> > point. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Robert > Dale < > >> > > > > > >> > [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Stephen, I think what Sebb might be getting > >> at > >> > is > >> > > > that > >> > > > > > some > >> > > > > > >> > > > things > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> should be spelled out even if they are > >> obvious > >> > to > >> > > > > some. > >> > > > > > I > >> > > > > > >> > agree > >> > > > > > >> > > > > with > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> this. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> 3.2.1 (latest, stable) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> 3.1.3 (bug fixes only) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> I think the dates should be in ISO8601 > >> format. > >> > > > > > YYYY-MM-DD > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Otherwise, I think it looks very good. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> -- > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Robert Dale > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Jason > >> Plurad < > >> > > > > > >> > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > +1 looks great. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > Link to the documentation, maybe next to > >> the > >> > > > release > >> > > > > > >> notes > >> > > > > > >> > > > link, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> would be > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > useful too. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > -- Jason > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Stephen > >> > > Mallette > >> > > > < > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> I think it might be a good idea to > >> include a > >> > > > > > "Download > >> > > > > > >> > Page" > >> > > > > > >> > > > on > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > our > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> web > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> site. It would let us better list the > >> > versions > >> > > we > >> > > > > > have > >> > > > > > >> out > >> > > > > > >> > > > there > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > and > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> would > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> get us better in line with Apache > >> > > Infrastructure > >> > > > - > >> > > > > > for > >> > > > > > >> > > > example: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/ > >> > > > > jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1255 > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> I'm also seeing that we yet have spots > >> where > >> > we > >> > > > > dont' > >> > > > > > >> link > >> > > > > > >> > > to > >> > > > > > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> mirror > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> system. And finally, it would be nice to > >> > have a > >> > > > > > >> "generic" > >> > > > > > >> > > > > download > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> page > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> where we could point external links to - > >> like > >> > > the > >> > > > > new > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > "documentation" > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> feature in StackOverflow (right now it's > >> > sorta > >> > > > > > hardcoded > >> > > > > > >> > to > >> > > > > > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> mirror > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> which isn't so good because we'll have > to > >> > > change > >> > > > > that > >> > > > > > >> all > >> > > > > > >> > > the > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > time). > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> I quickly took a swipe at such a page: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> http://tinkerpop.apache.org/do > >> wnloads.html > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> It is NOT "linked to" by anything at > this > >> > point > >> > > > so > >> > > > > > it is > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > "hidden". I > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> just > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> wanted to have something that everyone > >> could > >> > > look > >> > > > > at > >> > > > > > to > >> > > > > > >> > get > >> > > > > > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > idea > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> of > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> what such a page might look like. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> Thoughts? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> Thanks, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> Stephen > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Robert Dale > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > Robert Dale > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Robert Dale > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Robert Dale > >> > > > > > -- Robert Dale
