I don't get how discussion about re-organising instructions (= something that is needed given the benefits we get from the new Jekyll approach with templates for retirement messages) goes into a discussion about the 2 output orphan branches
as you notices, I split the instructions in 2 different pages: 1. the overview, that is meant for external readers to understand the wider view 2. the howto details, that is more meant for Attic PMC to have more detailed instructions: only the DOAP aspect is useful for contributors, when a retired PMC wants to help us getting help from retired PMC happened so few in the past, I hope this will happen more in the future with our better instructions IMHO, we need to clarify what is for the Attic team, and what is for external people (with eventually before and after retirement) notice that I also have M&P expectations in mind = https://github.com/apache/attic-site/pull/2 we'll need in the future some help from retired PMC to help identify and update non-ASF managed assets like these ones BTW, this is the right time and place to thank everybody for the great job done on past 2 weeks: the level of positive activity has been incredible, associated to the technical migrations. I'm so happy that we were able to not only struggle on technical details, but get a real benefit for the Attic Let's continue! ----- Mail original ----- De: "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com> À: general@attic.apache.org Envoyé: Vendredi 2 Mai 2025 12:36:15 Objet: Re: Process instructions need re-organising On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 09:00, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 23:29, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > There is a lot of overlap and duplication in the various Process pages. > > > > They need re-organising. > > > > I agree and its mostly on one page. I was thinking it might be better to > break it up into more pages. > > I was thinking about creating a branch to try out a few ideas - we could > stage it for review & feedback - without messing up the live site. Would > need to adjust the workflow to just generate the site and not do all the > banner processing. Perhaps one "experimental" branch for everyone or > separate one for specific features. That's a good idea, but care needs to be taken to ensure that the correct branches get updated. There are 2 output branches to consider - asf-site - cwiki-retired I think it would be useful to generate both, though cwiki-retired could be added to the site branch rather than a separate branch. This would allow the output to be checked. > Niall > > > > > > Sebb > >
