Le dimanche 29 avril 2018, 14:46:09 CEST sebb a écrit : > On 29 April 2018 at 11:33, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: > > Le dimanche 29 avril 2018, 11:04:44 CEST sebb a écrit : > >> On 29 April 2018 at 09:41, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: > >> > first, I want to reassure everybody: this is a discussion, to get > >> > common > >> > knowledge of how things work in other projects then may work in the > >> > future for Attic if we decide to do an equivalent setup > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > Le dimanche 29 avril 2018, 07:50:21 CEST sebb a écrit : > >> >> On 28 April 2018 at 12:48, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > On 28 April 2018 at 12:37, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: > >> >> ... > >> >> > >> >> >> In Git, this would naturally be in a separate branch named > >> >> >> "asf-site" > >> >> > >> >> How would that work for Attic? > >> >> > >> >> Where would the source files used to generate the site be held? > >> > > >> > There are multiple ways of doing, and GitHub documented it as clearly > >> > as > >> > possible [2] (yes, what we do at ASF with GitPubSub is exactly what > >> > GitHub calls "GitHub Pages", with marketing bells turned on and > >> > technical > >> > details on the build solution turned off) > >> > > >> > The 2 common ways are: > >> > 1. publish html from separate branch (which would be by default > >> > "asf-site" > >> > at ASF, and is "gh-pages" at GitHub) 2. publish html from a > >> > subdirectory > >> > on master branch (you see Attic current pattern?) > >> > > >> > I find the first option a lot more clear from a build+scm perspective > >> > than > >> > the second one. This will avoid the exact same discussion we have > >> > currently at Attic with svn to know who commits the generated content > >> > (& > >> > when as a consequence): - CI after source-only commit? > >> > - or user who builds on his machine then commits simultaneously source > >> > and > >> > generated content? > >> > > >> > Then looking at ASF gitwcsub configuration [2], I had a look at many > >> > ASF > >> > projects: the 2 ways are used. I picked Cayenne [3] case to show a case > >> > where: > >> > - master branch is a source branch, with markup and a build script > >> > - asf-site branch is a completely separate branch that contains > >> > generated > >> > html It uses Maven scm-publish plugin to update asf-git branch with > >> > generated html [6] > >> > > >> > But there is also Freemarker [4], that has a simple README telling "To > >> > publish the built site, commit the output into the "asf-site" branch". > >> > > >> > Or Accumulo [5] which uses Jekyll and has some instructions to publish > >> > generated output to asf-site branch with a git-hook that I don't fully > >> > understand, but that maybe Attic members will prefer since it seems > >> > it's > >> > more the common culture here > >> > > >> > Notice: I'm a Maven guy, I co-wrote the Maven scm-publish plugin used > >> > by > >> > Cayenne, and I use it in many projects, initially with svn as target > >> > source control (in 2012, for svnpubsub & Apache CMS) then with git > >> > also, > >> > when GitHub pages became popular. But I see that it's not the right > >> > choice at Attic because it's not the most common Attic culture. > >> > >> Attic does not produce source code. > >> The only output from its SCM is the website. > > > > yes, like any other website that I showed: source code here is a markup > > language (be it Markdown, xdoc, static content, or anything else) > > Attic is really exactly the same > > > > What makes Attic different is that Attic does not have any other repo for > > "programming" code: that's true, but does not change anything regarding > > site> > >> AFAICT, all the above examples have a branch which contains the source > >> for building the website. > > > > yes, I explained I chose them exactly for that reason > > > > I can show you Airavata site, which is quite simple and did the other > > choice: https://github.com/apache/airavata-site > > > > source is in source, output is in content in the same branch > > This is equivalent to Attic. > > > it could have been: source in master branch, content in asf-site branch > > which is the most common setup in GitHub pages (= what people nowadays > > know a lot) > > > >> 1) The source is edited. > >> 2) Run the build script to create the output in a clean subdirectory > >> 3) Copy the subdirectory tree to the asf-site branch > >> 4) commit the asf-site branch > >> 5) The entire asf-site branch is then published via pubsub. > >> > >> What Attic does currently is: > >> 1) & 2) as above > >> 3) commit the changes > >> 5) as above > >> > >> i.e. there is no need to copy the generated output anywhere because it > >> is part of the same repo. > >> > >> This works because svnpubsub is set up to get its source from the > >> docs/ subdirectory > > > > yes, the setup with source and output in the same svn repo or Git branch > > makes it simple to checkout, but it mixes 2 types of files (source and > > generated) > > > > separating source and generated in 2 separate locations (separate svn root > > or different branches in the same git repo) makes things more clear, at > > the cost of an extra step to check out the generated content then update > > with the updated content > > The workspace still contains both source and generated output in the > examples I have seen. > > I assume it is ignored by SVN/Git so does not get committed or show up > as a local change. I showed you Cayenne, Freemarker and Accumulo that are not like this. Here we go back to Freemarker: - source: https://github.com/apache/freemarker-site - output: https://github.com/apache/freemarker-site/tree/asf-site
> > > yes: choose your issue > > personally, I prefer the second setup (clear but a little harder to setup) > > I don't like having mixed content in one repo (source and generated > > output) > > > > If everybody understands that these 2 setups a completely equivalent but > > really prefer the mixed one (just to avoid a second checkout), I'll let > > you > > go: I don't have any problem myself, I make a strong difference between > > source directory and output directory > > There's still mixed content in local workspaces unless you generate > the output in a separate tree. > > > But if people start to edit output directory instead of source (like it is > > so easy to do in the mixed content setup), you're at risk > > It's also possible to checkin the generated output if it's not > properly ignored in a 2 branch version. > And then wonder why the site does not get updated. that's why in general there is a .gitignore or svn:ignore that is properly configured > > >> I don't know if gitpubsub can take its input from a subdirectory of a > >> branch. > > > > it can: see Airavata site > > Ah - I see now. > > The webserver defines the site to be under content/, so the branch can > contain other files in parallel directories. > > >> If not, then we will have to change strategy in order to use Git. > >> Otherwise, we have a choice. > > > > we have a choice > > Yes. > > I prefer the status quo, not least because it involves fewer changes > (I think only renaming docs/ to content/ if we move to Git). > Using multiple repos would involve updating instructions as well. no, it's not multiple repos but multiple branches of the same repo > > But if the majority want to change I won't object. since you are the guy who does the buidbot script, that does the commit, you'll have to be confident that you can code the multi-branch option > > > Regards, > > > > Hervé > > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > Hervé > >> > > >> > > >> > [1] > >> > https://help.github.com/articles/configuring-a-publishing-source-for-gi > >> > th > >> > ub-pages/ > >> > > >> > [2] > >> > https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-puppet/blob/deployment/modules > >> > /g > >> > itwcsub/files/config/gitwcsub.cfg > >> > > >> > [3] https://github.com/apache/cayenne-website/ > >> > > >> > [4] https://github.com/apache/freemarker-site > >> > > >> > [5] https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website > >> > > >> > [6] > >> > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-scm-publish-plugin/various-tips. > >> > ht > >> > ml#Git_branch
