+1
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:12 PM, jay vyas wrote:
> agreed niclas that tools are secondary; but deploying websites is just a
> hassle that steals cycles from that heroic group of folks who would rather
> be spending their time writing awesome docs :)
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Nicla
agreed niclas that tools are secondary; but deploying websites is just a
hassle that steals cycles from that heroic group of folks who would rather
be spending their time writing awesome docs :)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> We (developers) always discuss tools for m
We (developers) always discuss tools for making documentation easier. But
we (developers) will always cite another hurdle (with tools) for not
contributing more to documentation. In a lot of cases, it doesn't matter
how easy the tools become, it is still the same heroic lot of people whoc
write the
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> wrote:
>
>> This looks good.
>>
>> So do I understand any of the commiters editing the site would still
>> need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like
>> autobu
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
wrote:
> This looks good.
>
> So do I understand any of the commiters editing the site would still
> need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like
> autobuild?
>
It is manual, so it isn't as easy as github pages. Howeve
Git can be used instead of SVN. CMS is not required.
Drill has comprehensive docs on how to push their web-site:
https://github.com/apache/drill/tree/gh-pages-master
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Jay Vyas
wrote:
> Yeah, same question... Svn pushing or CMS still required? According to
> th
Yeah, same question... Svn pushing or CMS still required? According to the
snippet below the svn part is no longer needed? But maybe I'm
misinterpreting ...?
> On Aug 3, 2015, at 11:22 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
> This looks good.
>
> So do I understand any of the commiters editing
This looks good.
So do I understand any of the commiters editing the site would still
need to run Jekyll manually and push (how?), or is there a GitHub like
autobuild?
Is Jekyll still requiring various Ruby libraries to be installed in a
carefully selected version (with fun time on Windows for na
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Several projects are using Jekyll to emulate the github style site
> processing. As an example: http://drill.apache.org/
>
> THis is still a bit inconvenient in that the gh-pages branch has to be
> built using jekyll and then checked into SVN
ntrol the canonical source, but do we
> > really need to own web server?
> > >>
> > >> A concern, for me, would be if hosting on GitHub Pages meant that we
> > could not easily switch to another host.
> > >>
> >
>
> I share thi
that we
> could not easily switch to another host.
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:40 AM
> > To: dev@community.apache.org
> > Subject: Re
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:55 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> SSL
> Specifically - apache.org sites are in https-everywhere. Those sites
> can't provide SSL.
>
Very good point.
>
> None of the current TLP web sites are being served from Apache
> hardware though - it's all VMs in 2-3 different cloud p
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> I think those other comments about Jekyll had to do with keeping all of
> the site storage on apache servers.
>
>
I'm not sure I understand how Jekyll affects that. Are we concerned that
GitHub will not render the site's source accurately? An
ndering
service out in the open source which would be easy enough to deploy.
> >> Ross
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:40 AM
> >> To: dev@communit
if hosting on GitHub Pages meant that we could
>> not easily switch to another host.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:40 AM
>> To: dev@community.apach
to another host.
>
> Ross
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:40 AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: GitHub Pages
>
> Chris,
>
> The easy summary is that Apac
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Is it really necessary for our web pages to be served from Apache
> hardware? If so, why?
>
> I understand why we want to control the canonical source, but do we really
> need to own web server?
>
On Mar 11, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Chris,
>
> The easy summary is that Apache would like to keep apache sites being
> served by apache controlled hardware.
Is that right ?
Or is it more an issue of keeping the source under ASF canonical repo ?
>
> Github serving pages fails t
host.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:40 AM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: GitHub Pages
Chris,
The easy summary is that Apache would like to keep apache sites being served by
apache controlled hardware
Chris,
The easy summary is that Apache would like to keep apache sites being
served by apache controlled hardware.
Github serving pages fails that test.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Christopher wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> >
> > I think those other com
I think those other comments about Jekyll had to do with keeping all of the
site storage on apache servers.
There have been objections in this thread about using github.io based sites
even with site name masquerading.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 6, 2015, at 14:36, Christopher wrote:
>
>
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2015-03-05 15:42 GMT+01:00 Sebastien Goasguen :
>
> > So FWIW, I never thought about using github pages for our website.
> > I just tried it.
> >
> > Created an orphaned gh-pages in our repo, pushed that. It got mirrored
> > right away and
yup ! GH-pages just finds the branch.
if its there it displays it.
its a totally decoupled publishing tool.
using gh-pages as a convention could allow
automation of th SVN tooling as well, so its
really a great, cross platform convention that
wont force coupling to github.
On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2015-03-05 15:42 GMT+01:00 Sebastien Goasguen :
>
>> So FWIW, I never thought about using github pages for our website.
>> I just tried it.
>>
>> Created an orphaned gh-pages in our repo, pushed that. It got mirrored
>> right away and now w
2015-03-05 15:42 GMT+01:00 Sebastien Goasguen :
> So FWIW, I never thought about using github pages for our website.
> I just tried it.
>
> Created an orphaned gh-pages in our repo, pushed that. It got mirrored
> right away and now we have:
> http://apache.github.io/cloudstack/
>
> Based off of:
>
So FWIW, I never thought about using github pages for our website.
I just tried it.
Created an orphaned gh-pages in our repo, pushed that. It got mirrored right
away and now we have:
http://apache.github.io/cloudstack/
Based off of:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/tree/gh-pages
Loving it,
Hi Christopher,
GitHub Pages is actually powered by Jekyll: http://jekyllrb.com
So that would mean to add such build method to Apache CMS.
I'd be more than happy to explore such path.
On 04/03/15 22:06, Christopher wrote:
All,
Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project
Several projects are using Jekyll to emulate the github style site
processing. As an example: http://drill.apache.org/
THis is still a bit inconvenient in that the gh-pages branch has to be
built using jekyll and then checked into SVN, but it does work pretty
easily. The process pretty much has
While I'm interested in the idea of deploying GitLab (I've used it, it's
nice enough), I think it's a separate issue than this thread about pages.
Unless it strongly relates to the idea of pages, could we please discuss
that in a separate thread, so we can give that topic it's own focus?
--
Chris
I would love to see a GitLab trial at Apache infrastructure - I feel
uncomfortable at directing other developers to look at
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/ - the rendering of a repository does not
even tell you where to clone from!
GitLab Installation is fairly easy, there's also a GitLab docker ima
On this note; Git without Github is like sex without a partner, sufficient
but not very satisfactory. Github option has been explored in the past, and
due to various reasons, it was not possible to achieve.
But, during my last 2-3 year absence, has the GitLab[1] option been
discussed and/or tried?
+1 for this idea. i probably should have phrased my idea better, this is
exactly what i think we need !
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Christopher wrote:
> I think I remember the same thing... but in that case, the content was
> hosted exclusively in GitHub. This suggestion is that the conten
I think I remember the same thing... but in that case, the content was
hosted exclusively in GitHub. This suggestion is that the content is hosted
in ASF repos, and it just happens to be mirrored in GitHub, which
conveniently does rendering. Ultimately, the value to be gained is:
1) better looking
I like the idea. Anything to avoid requiring svn to update project sites.
But... Iirc I started a similar thread before and was told that forwarding
Apache.org to github static site was against the rules ?Maybe I misinterpreted
...
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Christopher wrote:
>
> All,
>
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Christopher wrote:
> All,
>
> Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project
> documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple
> static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now using
> git, and we mirror
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Christopher wrote:
> All,
>
> Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project
> documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple
> static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now using
> git, and we mirro
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ted Dunning
> wrote:
> > ...Apache Drill has been doing something like this for some time. They
> use
> > Jekyll from Github to render markdown as HTML and then commit the HTML to
> > SVN to th
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> ...Apache Drill has been doing something like this for some time. They use
> Jekyll from Github to render markdown as HTML and then commit the HTML to
> SVN to that pubsub carries it to the right places...
Do you have URLs that show how
Apache Drill has been doing something like this for some time. They use
Jekyll from Github to render markdown as HTML and then commit the HTML to
SVN to that pubsub carries it to the right places.
By doing this in the gh-pages branch of their git repo, the get the side
effect that they can use Gi
2015-01-08 9:26 GMT+01:00 Sergio Fernández :
> Hi Benedikt,
>
> what's the different between the workflow you're suggesting and using the
> doxia-module-markdown module for building the site with Maven?
>
Probably there's no difference. I was just unaware of the
doxia-module-markdown. Damn, every
Hi Benedikt,
what's the different between the workflow you're suggesting and using
the doxia-module-markdown module for building the site with Maven?
In Marmotta we use that, but we're open to fresh ideas in case we could
address some minor issues (page titles, variables replacement, etc) we
41 matches
Mail list logo
