>> It would mean "use logging.staged.apache.org (the ~), but generate the 
>> content to the subfolder /log4j".
>> I left out the magic /content folder since it was a given. This magic folder 
>> appears to be the problem that I raised with moving the main site to 
>> logging, at least, that's what I understood from infra: because of the bug, 
>> we would generate to /output, which confused the server.
>
> Yes. I can see how this would confuse it. When you changed the main 
> site to use output instead of content you essentially deleted the 
> content directory. So then the sub-project web sites had nowhere to 
> live. We would have had to change all the sub-projects to switch to 
> using output as well to fix it.

Yes, that is what I was told too. Meanwhile, my fix worked and even Jekyll 
works with content now. 
However, the staging server seems to be in a bad "state", that's why I asked 
infra to help and maybe clean it.
Once they do this, everything is back to normal, which is currently my goal. I 
really would love to have a working Jekyll site now, with all the news we have 
coming in.

Piotrs proposal is a different thing to me, and I don't have an opinion about 
this yet. In the end, I agree with you and Piotr as well that we should keep 
the existing URLs for the next 30 years or so

Reply via email to