On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 11:47, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 08:52, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 07:09, Hervé Boutemy <hbout...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Le mercredi 9 avril 2025, 13:33:08 CEST Niall Pemberton a écrit : > > > > On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 at 08:04, Hervé Boutemy <hbout...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Attic website is currently in svn: > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/attic/site/ > > > > > > > > > > with Git read-only mirror > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/attic-site/ > > > > > > > > > > we are facing 2 issues: > > > > > - viewvc is not working any more on svn, which makes svn even less > > usable > > > > > nowadays than ever before: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/attic > > > > > - people propose PRs on Git as it is common knowledge nowadays (who > > > > > remembers > > > > > how to do Jira issue with svn patch attached? who takes time to do > > it?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like that we switch to Git read-write for site's source > > maintenance > > > > > particularly the xdocs source > > > > > > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/attic/site/xdocs/ > > > > > > > > > > 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) > > > > > = https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/attic/site/docs/ > > > > > What is important to me is to split the source xdocs from the > > generated > > > > > HTML > > > > > docs to clarify: whatever we choose should not impact user workflow, > > then > > > > > I > > > > > think we should do what is easiest from a migration perspective > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > Personally I would be in favour of moving the website to a more > > supported > > > > toolset (markdown & Jekyll or Pelican?) and away from ant/anakia/xdocs > > and > > > > split out the two "flagged" parts that the banner stuff relies on > > > > > > yes, it also needs modernization to have a chance to get contributions/ > > > contributors. > > > > But does the Attic website really need contributions? > > What's needed is people to do the work, which is largely independent > > of the website. > > > > You're right that it currently works and the current people are more than > capable of doing the work. However, people move on and for the long term, > Attic would be in a better place maintenance-wise to move to Git and update > the tech used.
My point is that the need for maintenance of the site is minimal. > I agree with Hervé - lets take the first step of moving the site to Git. I > think once thats done we should look at using Jekyll to generate the > retired project pages. I can take a look at doing a PoC for that. I think the first step should be separating the banner flagging code from the website. The website can then be moved without hindrance. Indeed, I don't see how the website can be moved to Git without some changes to how the banner code works. But someone needs to produce a plan as to what needs to be done to ensure continuity. > Niall > > > > > > > it's a question of chicken and egg: ease contribution (particularly > > review > > > process) before changing all the source code and build? > > > or change all the source code and build before easing contribution? > > > > > > Changing the build tool is my hope for future too: it's just not that > > simple, > > > more complex than going to Git for maintaining source code > > > > > > that's why I deliberately chose to start the modernization journey by > > svn to > > > Git, which will help us try and review the toolset > > > > > > Hervé > > > > > > > > > > > Niall > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Hervé > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
