Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

2017-02-24 Thread Anthony Baker
> On Feb 22, 2017, at 6:10 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > >> On Feb 17, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Karen Miller wrote: >> >> Seems like everyone is in favor of the separate repo. I'll request one >> early next week. >> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2507 to handle the >> first pa

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

2017-02-22 Thread Anthony Baker
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Karen Miller wrote: > > Seems like everyone is in favor of the separate repo. I'll request one > early next week. > I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2507 to handle the > first parts > of the task of getting the new repo up and running. > The

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

2017-02-17 Thread William Markito Oliveira
+1 On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Karen Miller wrote: > Seems like everyone is in favor of the separate repo. I'll request one > early next week. > I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2507 to handle the > first parts > of the task of getting the new repo up and running. > >

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

2017-02-17 Thread Karen Miller
Seems like everyone is in favor of the separate repo. I'll request one early next week. I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2507 to handle the first parts of the task of getting the new repo up and running. On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Fe

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

2017-02-17 Thread Kirk Lund
+1 On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Joey McAllister wrote: > +1 to Karen's suggestion of moving the website to its own repo. > > +1 to Dan's suggestion scripting the website build/publishing with a CI > system based on commits. > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:38 PM Dan Smith wrote: > > > +1 > > >

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

2017-02-17 Thread Udo Kohlmeyer
+1 for grown up project with multiple repositories. +1 Karen's multiple repos +1 For Dan... On 2/16/17 17:01, Greg Chase wrote: The single repository is from our time as an incubating project. Now we can act like a grown up project 😜 This email encrypted by tiny buttons & fat thumbs, beta v

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

2017-02-17 Thread Anthony Baker
Another advantage: since the geode-site/ directory would not be included in the geode source release, we can move a number of the javascript and font references out of the geode LICENSE. Anthony > On Feb 16, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > Yes, please. Let’s call the repo geode-s

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo+1

2017-02-16 Thread Hitesh Khamesra
+1 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Anthony Baker wrote: Yes, please.  Let’s call the repo geode-site.  Use two branches:  master and asf-site.  If we can auto-build and push to asf-site that would be awesome. Anthony > On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:38 PM, Dan Sm

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

2017-02-16 Thread Anthony Baker
Yes, please. Let’s call the repo geode-site. Use two branches: master and asf-site. If we can auto-build and push to asf-site that would be awesome. Anthony > On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:38 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > > +1 > > I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed t

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

2017-02-16 Thread Greg Chase
The single repository is from our time as an incubating project. Now we can act like a grown up project 😜 This email encrypted by tiny buttons & fat thumbs, beta voice recognition, and autocorrect on my iPhone. > On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Anilkumar Gingade wrote: > > +1 > > On Thu, Feb 16

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

2017-02-16 Thread Anilkumar Gingade
+1 On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Joey McAllister wrote: > +1 to Karen's suggestion of moving the website to its own repo. > > +1 to Dan's suggestion scripting the website build/publishing with a CI > system based on commits. > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:38 PM Dan Smith wrote: > > > +1 > > >

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

2017-02-16 Thread Joey McAllister
+1 to Karen's suggestion of moving the website to its own repo. +1 to Dan's suggestion scripting the website build/publishing with a CI system based on commits. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:38 PM Dan Smith wrote: > +1 > > I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed to >

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

2017-02-16 Thread Dave Barnes
The current mechanism for publishing the website is quite convoluted. As you point out, the software and the website are only loosely coupled. I see only good outcomes for allowing the repos to reflect that reality. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Karen Miller wrote: > I think that the website

Re: for discussion: separate website into its own repo

2017-02-16 Thread Dan Smith
+1 I think the current setup is confusing, because the website is supposed to include docs that are generated from the last release, but the site instructions say the site should be generated from develop. A separate repo with a single branch will probably reduce confusion. We also need to script