On 2025/04/05 15:00:46 sebb wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 at 15:09, Herve Boutemy <hbout...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I want to do the work, with your help (as we already documented quite a few
> > topics)
> >
> > I prepared a Git filtered "main" branch with docs/ output removed:
> > https://github.com/hboutemy/attic-site/tree/main
> > = source only, that should be maintained in Git for ease of external
> > contributions
> > (exact command run is "git-filter-repo --path docs --invert-paths")
> >
> > If we just change the build script to get its source from such Git branch
> > and commit output to existing svn:
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/attic/site/docs/
> > and https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/attic/site/cwiki_retired/
> >
> > We don't need to change the infrastructure visible svn for html and flags =
> > what would be harder and more risky.
> >
> > I'm not a buildbot expert, I don't know how to update
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/buildbot2/projects/attic-site.py
> >
> > but I can do it with Jenkins (I have experience with such source in Git +
> > Jenkins build to html checked-in to svnpubsub)
> >
> >
> > looks feasible, isn't it?
>
> Of course it's possible, but there is at least one reference to SVN
> source that you have overlooked.
which one, please?
playing cat and mouse?
>
> Generating the website from Git instead of SVN is relatively easy (but
> it's not trivial, e.g. dealing with deletions)
> However that is only part of it.
>
> The Attic banners are handled by Infra code, which expects to find the
> files in specific places.
> There needs to be a plan to show that these have been allowed for.
I don't get what this all means: the concept is that nothing changes in svn as
a result of the build, isn't it?
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hervé
