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 muc
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
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 hav
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 s
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)
20
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 님이 작성:
> +1
> I am
+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)
+1 for moving to git. - Xin
2017-07-31 14:54 GMT+08:00 Jungtaek Lim :
> 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 the
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 님이 작성:
> M
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 님이 작성:
> Did we render webpage with asf-site branch? I didn't recognize it.
>
> Yes I meant separate git repository, like 'storm-site'.
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,
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, t
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 versi
13 matches
Mail list logo
