+1

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Joey McAllister <jmcallis...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> +1 to Karen's suggestion of moving the website to its own repo.
>
> +1 to Dan's suggestion scripting the website build/publishing with a CI
> system based on commits.
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:38 PM Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed
> to
> > include docs that are generated from the last release, but the site
> > instructions say the site should be generated from develop. A separate
> repo
> > with a single branch will probably reduce confusion.
> >
> > We also need to script the website building and publishing, and ideally
> > have the publishing done by a CI system based on commits. It looks like
> > some other projects are talking about doing this with jenkins jenkins -
> see
> > INFRA-10722 for example.
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller <kmil...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that the website content that is currently in geode/geode-site
> > > ought to be moved to its own repository.  The driving reason for this
> is
> > > that changes to the website occur on a different schedule than code
> > > releases.  We often want to add a new committer's name or a new
> > > event, and these items are not associated with sw releases. A new
> website
> > > release that comes from the develop branch may have commits that
> > > should not yet be made public.
> > >
> > > Are there downsides to separating the website content into its own
> repo?
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to