On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 at 12:49, Herve Boutemy <hbout...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Git does not store empty directories, so that would require a change > > to the way the flagged/ tree is maintained. > > (note that the enitre flagged/ tree is missing from the mirror under > > xdocs and docs) > > > > Not a blocker, but it would have to be sorted first. > yes > perhaps the opportunity to document where the site HTML content is stored, as > we are currently discovering that Attic is not maintaining retired projects, > but de-facto is having a minimum level of maintenance of HTML websites > = something we did not really organize until now > > > > > > and choose what we do with the html output in doc: either keep it in svn > > > for > > > svnpubsub or switch it to Git branch for GitPubSub (or any name this > > > mechanism > > > has nowadays) > > > > The site is currently built using buildbot, which assumes SVN for > > source and target. > > That would also have to be fixed. > yes > > > > > > = https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/attic/site/docs/ > > > What is important to me is to split the source xdocs from the generated > > > HTML > > > > Why? > because mixing source and output html in the same svn tree creates confusion, > double commits > We got that situation from history: once we clearly split the source + build > instructions vs output, it will also ease for example thinking at updating > the build tool and source format (xdoc + Ant + Velocity) > > this step will really be an enabler for the future
It's no easier to update two separate repos with build output than one. > > > > > docs to clarify: whatever we choose should not impact user workflow, then > > > I > > > think we should do what is easiest from a migration perspective > > > > Moving to Git will definitely affect the workfllow, so I don't > > understand the above paragraph. > users contribute to source, mainly in xdocs/ directory = where we need Git PRs > > the build process that generates output html to docs/, commit and > distribution to target systems is completely hidden behind CI and CD (HTML > and other flag files deploy to target machines is CD) The standard build process for Git project websites also hides the build process behind CI. I don't know what CD means. > contributors to source don't really look at it ??? I'm not saying we should not move to Git, but I think we need to be clear that it is not a panacea, and it will involve quite a lot of work. We've not mentioned documentation yet. Who is going to do the work? And how do we test that the new setup works OK? For example, we don't want to find that the Attic banners suddenly disappear from websites and wikis. > > > > > WDYT? > > > > Also, what about the current JIRA workflow that Attic uses? > > Would that be moved to Git somehow? > > Note that Attic would still need to use Jira for raising Infra issues. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hervé > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
