website v2

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

website v2

Joe Witt
Matt, Aldrin,

Just specifying you in particular since you were both actively engaged
on it. But this is really for everyone:

Can we reengage on the website v2 effort?  I believe the last thing I
saw is that some important ticket or action was held up in INFRA.  I
know that INFRA has a chatroom they are available in.  I think
generally if they fall behind or something falls through the cracks
they don't mind a ping.

One thing with the change I know was part of the motivation was an
easier/more direct path to making updates.  That part wasn't totally
clear to me so will be curious to hear more about how that will work.
As Dan or others have pointed out we need to get a more direct line
from doc changes to getting them deployed.  And ideally we'd have the
extensions all up there as well.

Anyway - just want to get a view on where this is at.

Thanks
Joe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: website v2

Matt Gilman
I've sent a couple emails which dev was CC'ed on. Since I wasn't hearing
anything there, I opened a JIRA ticket with them as well [1]. There has
been no activity on it yet. I was not aware of any INFRA chatroom.

It sounds like when configured for an external build, we just need to
commit the website to the SVN repository. It's not clear however, if there
is still a staging phase or if it's immediately published. These are
questions I've asked in emails and in the ticket. The idea is that the
website and the application build would be separate but would commit to the
same repository so the documentation and the website can be can be updated
and deployed independently.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9291

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Matt, Aldrin,
>
> Just specifying you in particular since you were both actively engaged
> on it. But this is really for everyone:
>
> Can we reengage on the website v2 effort?  I believe the last thing I
> saw is that some important ticket or action was held up in INFRA.  I
> know that INFRA has a chatroom they are available in.  I think
> generally if they fall behind or something falls through the cracks
> they don't mind a ping.
>
> One thing with the change I know was part of the motivation was an
> easier/more direct path to making updates.  That part wasn't totally
> clear to me so will be curious to hear more about how that will work.
> As Dan or others have pointed out we need to get a more direct line
> from doc changes to getting them deployed.  And ideally we'd have the
> extensions all up there as well.
>
> Anyway - just want to get a view on where this is at.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: website v2

Joe Witt
Matt

Rgr that.  There are several tickets open which could be part of this work:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-445?jql=project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20text%20~%20%22website%22

Which one are you working on?  Perhaps we can divide and conquer.
There are a lot of updates in v1 that are not yet reflected in V2.
Plus in V2 we need an updated image.  So perhaps folks will contribute
if we can document the needs on the ticket.

Thanks
Joe

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Matt Gilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've sent a couple emails which dev was CC'ed on. Since I wasn't hearing
> anything there, I opened a JIRA ticket with them as well [1]. There has
> been no activity on it yet. I was not aware of any INFRA chatroom.
>
> It sounds like when configured for an external build, we just need to
> commit the website to the SVN repository. It's not clear however, if there
> is still a staging phase or if it's immediately published. These are
> questions I've asked in emails and in the ticket. The idea is that the
> website and the application build would be separate but would commit to the
> same repository so the documentation and the website can be can be updated
> and deployed independently.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9291
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Matt, Aldrin,
>>
>> Just specifying you in particular since you were both actively engaged
>> on it. But this is really for everyone:
>>
>> Can we reengage on the website v2 effort?  I believe the last thing I
>> saw is that some important ticket or action was held up in INFRA.  I
>> know that INFRA has a chatroom they are available in.  I think
>> generally if they fall behind or something falls through the cracks
>> they don't mind a ping.
>>
>> One thing with the change I know was part of the motivation was an
>> easier/more direct path to making updates.  That part wasn't totally
>> clear to me so will be curious to hear more about how that will work.
>> As Dan or others have pointed out we need to get a more direct line
>> from doc changes to getting them deployed.  And ideally we'd have the
>> extensions all up there as well.
>>
>> Anyway - just want to get a view on where this is at.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: website v2

Matt Gilman
I have not begun working on anything generated from the nifi build yet
(items identified in that ticket). My focus was on the website side of
things and I am currently in a holding pattern. It seems that the
referenced ticket is looking for a workaround in the meantime.

Without knowing more, I was thinking that once everything was set up for
the website's external build we could use maven to commit the specified
artifacts (maybe something like [1]) into the website's SVN repository and
eliminate the need to generate a tarball that someone would manually have
to upload like we're doing today.

Matt

[1] http://maven.apache.org/scm/maven-scm-plugin/checkin-mojo.html

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Matt
>
> Rgr that.  There are several tickets open which could be part of this work:
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-445?jql=project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20text%20~%20%22website%22
>
> Which one are you working on?  Perhaps we can divide and conquer.
> There are a lot of updates in v1 that are not yet reflected in V2.
> Plus in V2 we need an updated image.  So perhaps folks will contribute
> if we can document the needs on the ticket.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Matt Gilman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I've sent a couple emails which dev was CC'ed on. Since I wasn't hearing
> > anything there, I opened a JIRA ticket with them as well [1]. There has
> > been no activity on it yet. I was not aware of any INFRA chatroom.
> >
> > It sounds like when configured for an external build, we just need to
> > commit the website to the SVN repository. It's not clear however, if
> there
> > is still a staging phase or if it's immediately published. These are
> > questions I've asked in emails and in the ticket. The idea is that the
> > website and the application build would be separate but would commit to
> the
> > same repository so the documentation and the website can be can be
> updated
> > and deployed independently.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9291
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Matt, Aldrin,
> >>
> >> Just specifying you in particular since you were both actively engaged
> >> on it. But this is really for everyone:
> >>
> >> Can we reengage on the website v2 effort?  I believe the last thing I
> >> saw is that some important ticket or action was held up in INFRA.  I
> >> know that INFRA has a chatroom they are available in.  I think
> >> generally if they fall behind or something falls through the cracks
> >> they don't mind a ping.
> >>
> >> One thing with the change I know was part of the motivation was an
> >> easier/more direct path to making updates.  That part wasn't totally
> >> clear to me so will be curious to hear more about how that will work.
> >> As Dan or others have pointed out we need to get a more direct line
> >> from doc changes to getting them deployed.  And ideally we'd have the
> >> extensions all up there as well.
> >>
> >> Anyway - just want to get a view on where this is at.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Joe
> >>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: website v2

Matt Gilman
So I've been in contact with INFRA [1]. They've explained that we can ditch
CMS entirely. By going this route we will no longer be able to edit the
site online (through the Apache CMS tool) or have the staging capabilities.
We would be committing the site into a svn/git repository and it would be
available immediately (no staging). What this means is that the staging is
going to be done by the person updating the site on the machine they are
building on. Once they are comfortable they would deploy the updates by
committing into the svn/git repository. The mechanics of this commit
haven't been entirely worked out because I didn't know the particulars
regarding CMS if we opted for an external build. I am thinking that it can
be scripted or integrated into the build tool (grunt).

Additionally, the NiFi maven build could also commit to this svn/git
repository to automate the deployment of our user/admin/etc guides. There
is currently some discussion about how to automate the deployment of
component documentation at build time. Once that is decided, we could
automate their deployment as well.

Please let me know if there is any opposition to this approach. If I don't
hear anything I am going to continue proceeding down this path.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9291

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Matt Gilman <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I have not begun working on anything generated from the nifi build yet
> (items identified in that ticket). My focus was on the website side of
> things and I am currently in a holding pattern. It seems that the
> referenced ticket is looking for a workaround in the meantime.
>
> Without knowing more, I was thinking that once everything was set up for
> the website's external build we could use maven to commit the specified
> artifacts (maybe something like [1]) into the website's SVN repository and
> eliminate the need to generate a tarball that someone would manually have
> to upload like we're doing today.
>
> Matt
>
> [1] http://maven.apache.org/scm/maven-scm-plugin/checkin-mojo.html
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Matt
>>
>> Rgr that.  There are several tickets open which could be part of this
>> work:
>>
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-445?jql=project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20text%20~%20%22website%22
>>
>> Which one are you working on?  Perhaps we can divide and conquer.
>> There are a lot of updates in v1 that are not yet reflected in V2.
>> Plus in V2 we need an updated image.  So perhaps folks will contribute
>> if we can document the needs on the ticket.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Matt Gilman <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > I've sent a couple emails which dev was CC'ed on. Since I wasn't hearing
>> > anything there, I opened a JIRA ticket with them as well [1]. There has
>> > been no activity on it yet. I was not aware of any INFRA chatroom.
>> >
>> > It sounds like when configured for an external build, we just need to
>> > commit the website to the SVN repository. It's not clear however, if
>> there
>> > is still a staging phase or if it's immediately published. These are
>> > questions I've asked in emails and in the ticket. The idea is that the
>> > website and the application build would be separate but would commit to
>> the
>> > same repository so the documentation and the website can be can be
>> updated
>> > and deployed independently.
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9291
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Matt, Aldrin,
>> >>
>> >> Just specifying you in particular since you were both actively engaged
>> >> on it. But this is really for everyone:
>> >>
>> >> Can we reengage on the website v2 effort?  I believe the last thing I
>> >> saw is that some important ticket or action was held up in INFRA.  I
>> >> know that INFRA has a chatroom they are available in.  I think
>> >> generally if they fall behind or something falls through the cracks
>> >> they don't mind a ping.
>> >>
>> >> One thing with the change I know was part of the motivation was an
>> >> easier/more direct path to making updates.  That part wasn't totally
>> >> clear to me so will be curious to hear more about how that will work.
>> >> As Dan or others have pointed out we need to get a more direct line
>> >> from doc changes to getting them deployed.  And ideally we'd have the
>> >> extensions all up there as well.
>> >>
>> >> Anyway - just want to get a view on where this is at.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Joe
>> >>
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: website v2

Joe Witt
Matt

Nice.   That sounds really good to me.

Thanks
Joe
On Mar 26, 2015 9:05 PM, "Matt Gilman" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So I've been in contact with INFRA [1]. They've explained that we can ditch
> CMS entirely. By going this route we will no longer be able to edit the
> site online (through the Apache CMS tool) or have the staging capabilities.
> We would be committing the site into a svn/git repository and it would be
> available immediately (no staging). What this means is that the staging is
> going to be done by the person updating the site on the machine they are
> building on. Once they are comfortable they would deploy the updates by
> committing into the svn/git repository. The mechanics of this commit
> haven't been entirely worked out because I didn't know the particulars
> regarding CMS if we opted for an external build. I am thinking that it can
> be scripted or integrated into the build tool (grunt).
>
> Additionally, the NiFi maven build could also commit to this svn/git
> repository to automate the deployment of our user/admin/etc guides. There
> is currently some discussion about how to automate the deployment of
> component documentation at build time. Once that is decided, we could
> automate their deployment as well.
>
> Please let me know if there is any opposition to this approach. If I don't
> hear anything I am going to continue proceeding down this path.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9291
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Matt Gilman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I have not begun working on anything generated from the nifi build yet
> > (items identified in that ticket). My focus was on the website side of
> > things and I am currently in a holding pattern. It seems that the
> > referenced ticket is looking for a workaround in the meantime.
> >
> > Without knowing more, I was thinking that once everything was set up for
> > the website's external build we could use maven to commit the specified
> > artifacts (maybe something like [1]) into the website's SVN repository
> and
> > eliminate the need to generate a tarball that someone would manually have
> > to upload like we're doing today.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > [1] http://maven.apache.org/scm/maven-scm-plugin/checkin-mojo.html
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> Rgr that.  There are several tickets open which could be part of this
> >> work:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-445?jql=project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20text%20~%20%22website%22
> >>
> >> Which one are you working on?  Perhaps we can divide and conquer.
> >> There are a lot of updates in v1 that are not yet reflected in V2.
> >> Plus in V2 we need an updated image.  So perhaps folks will contribute
> >> if we can document the needs on the ticket.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Matt Gilman <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I've sent a couple emails which dev was CC'ed on. Since I wasn't
> hearing
> >> > anything there, I opened a JIRA ticket with them as well [1]. There
> has
> >> > been no activity on it yet. I was not aware of any INFRA chatroom.
> >> >
> >> > It sounds like when configured for an external build, we just need to
> >> > commit the website to the SVN repository. It's not clear however, if
> >> there
> >> > is still a staging phase or if it's immediately published. These are
> >> > questions I've asked in emails and in the ticket. The idea is that the
> >> > website and the application build would be separate but would commit
> to
> >> the
> >> > same repository so the documentation and the website can be can be
> >> updated
> >> > and deployed independently.
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9291
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Matt, Aldrin,
> >> >>
> >> >> Just specifying you in particular since you were both actively
> engaged
> >> >> on it. But this is really for everyone:
> >> >>
> >> >> Can we reengage on the website v2 effort?  I believe the last thing I
> >> >> saw is that some important ticket or action was held up in INFRA.  I
> >> >> know that INFRA has a chatroom they are available in.  I think
> >> >> generally if they fall behind or something falls through the cracks
> >> >> they don't mind a ping.
> >> >>
> >> >> One thing with the change I know was part of the motivation was an
> >> >> easier/more direct path to making updates.  That part wasn't totally
> >> >> clear to me so will be curious to hear more about how that will work.
> >> >> As Dan or others have pointed out we need to get a more direct line
> >> >> from doc changes to getting them deployed.  And ideally we'd have the
> >> >> extensions all up there as well.
> >> >>
> >> >> Anyway - just want to get a view on where this is at.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >> Joe
> >> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: website v2

trkurc
Administrator
In reply to this post by Matt Gilman
maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem to be that much
different than using Apache CMS exclusively via svn, like the initial
commits I did. couldn't we be doing something similar now?

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Matt Gilman <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> So I've been in contact with INFRA [1]. They've explained that we can ditch
> CMS entirely. By going this route we will no longer be able to edit the
> site online (through the Apache CMS tool) or have the staging capabilities.
> We would be committing the site into a svn/git repository and it would be
> available immediately (no staging). What this means is that the staging is
> going to be done by the person updating the site on the machine they are
> building on. Once they are comfortable they would deploy the updates by
> committing into the svn/git repository. The mechanics of this commit
> haven't been entirely worked out because I didn't know the particulars
> regarding CMS if we opted for an external build. I am thinking that it can
> be scripted or integrated into the build tool (grunt).
>
> Additionally, the NiFi maven build could also commit to this svn/git
> repository to automate the deployment of our user/admin/etc guides. There
> is currently some discussion about how to automate the deployment of
> component documentation at build time. Once that is decided, we could
> automate their deployment as well.
>
> Please let me know if there is any opposition to this approach. If I don't
> hear anything I am going to continue proceeding down this path.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9291
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Matt Gilman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I have not begun working on anything generated from the nifi build yet
> > (items identified in that ticket). My focus was on the website side of
> > things and I am currently in a holding pattern. It seems that the
> > referenced ticket is looking for a workaround in the meantime.
> >
> > Without knowing more, I was thinking that once everything was set up for
> > the website's external build we could use maven to commit the specified
> > artifacts (maybe something like [1]) into the website's SVN repository
> and
> > eliminate the need to generate a tarball that someone would manually have
> > to upload like we're doing today.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > [1] http://maven.apache.org/scm/maven-scm-plugin/checkin-mojo.html
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> Rgr that.  There are several tickets open which could be part of this
> >> work:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-445?jql=project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20text%20~%20%22website%22
> >>
> >> Which one are you working on?  Perhaps we can divide and conquer.
> >> There are a lot of updates in v1 that are not yet reflected in V2.
> >> Plus in V2 we need an updated image.  So perhaps folks will contribute
> >> if we can document the needs on the ticket.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Matt Gilman <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I've sent a couple emails which dev was CC'ed on. Since I wasn't
> hearing
> >> > anything there, I opened a JIRA ticket with them as well [1]. There
> has
> >> > been no activity on it yet. I was not aware of any INFRA chatroom.
> >> >
> >> > It sounds like when configured for an external build, we just need to
> >> > commit the website to the SVN repository. It's not clear however, if
> >> there
> >> > is still a staging phase or if it's immediately published. These are
> >> > questions I've asked in emails and in the ticket. The idea is that the
> >> > website and the application build would be separate but would commit
> to
> >> the
> >> > same repository so the documentation and the website can be can be
> >> updated
> >> > and deployed independently.
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9291
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Matt, Aldrin,
> >> >>
> >> >> Just specifying you in particular since you were both actively
> engaged
> >> >> on it. But this is really for everyone:
> >> >>
> >> >> Can we reengage on the website v2 effort?  I believe the last thing I
> >> >> saw is that some important ticket or action was held up in INFRA.  I
> >> >> know that INFRA has a chatroom they are available in.  I think
> >> >> generally if they fall behind or something falls through the cracks
> >> >> they don't mind a ping.
> >> >>
> >> >> One thing with the change I know was part of the motivation was an
> >> >> easier/more direct path to making updates.  That part wasn't totally
> >> >> clear to me so will be curious to hear more about how that will work.
> >> >> As Dan or others have pointed out we need to get a more direct line
> >> >> from doc changes to getting them deployed.  And ideally we'd have the
> >> >> extensions all up there as well.
> >> >>
> >> >> Anyway - just want to get a view on where this is at.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >> Joe
> >> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: website v2

Matt Gilman
Apache CMS doesn't support the build for the new website. The new site uses
a number of tools to build the static site. These include bower, assemble,
compass, etc to download front end components, assemble the pages, and
perform css pre processing. We certainly could take the built site and
manually upload via the CMS UI. However, it would be preferable in my
opinion to be able to automate that or do so by committing the content
directly.

I have committed the files via svn [1] and it wasn't clear how that fit
into the existing CMS UI -> Staging -> Publish work flow. What I committed
appeared in the staging repository and would be reflected when the site was
published. However, the files never ended up in the CMS UI. I'm not sure
the work flow intends to support modifications outside the UI. Hence the
INFRA comments about ditching CMS with the external build. I could be
wrong, I'll try to clarify this with them before it's ditched entirely.

Anyways, I think having the site content co-located with our sources makes
site updates more accessible to everyone.

[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/staging/nifi/trunk

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:

> maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem to be that much
> different than using Apache CMS exclusively via svn, like the initial
> commits I did. couldn't we be doing something similar now?
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Matt Gilman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > So I've been in contact with INFRA [1]. They've explained that we can
> ditch
> > CMS entirely. By going this route we will no longer be able to edit the
> > site online (through the Apache CMS tool) or have the staging
> capabilities.
> > We would be committing the site into a svn/git repository and it would be
> > available immediately (no staging). What this means is that the staging
> is
> > going to be done by the person updating the site on the machine they are
> > building on. Once they are comfortable they would deploy the updates by
> > committing into the svn/git repository. The mechanics of this commit
> > haven't been entirely worked out because I didn't know the particulars
> > regarding CMS if we opted for an external build. I am thinking that it
> can
> > be scripted or integrated into the build tool (grunt).
> >
> > Additionally, the NiFi maven build could also commit to this svn/git
> > repository to automate the deployment of our user/admin/etc guides. There
> > is currently some discussion about how to automate the deployment of
> > component documentation at build time. Once that is decided, we could
> > automate their deployment as well.
> >
> > Please let me know if there is any opposition to this approach. If I
> don't
> > hear anything I am going to continue proceeding down this path.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9291
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Matt Gilman <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have not begun working on anything generated from the nifi build yet
> > > (items identified in that ticket). My focus was on the website side of
> > > things and I am currently in a holding pattern. It seems that the
> > > referenced ticket is looking for a workaround in the meantime.
> > >
> > > Without knowing more, I was thinking that once everything was set up
> for
> > > the website's external build we could use maven to commit the specified
> > > artifacts (maybe something like [1]) into the website's SVN repository
> > and
> > > eliminate the need to generate a tarball that someone would manually
> have
> > > to upload like we're doing today.
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > [1] http://maven.apache.org/scm/maven-scm-plugin/checkin-mojo.html
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Matt
> > >>
> > >> Rgr that.  There are several tickets open which could be part of this
> > >> work:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-445?jql=project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20text%20~%20%22website%22
> > >>
> > >> Which one are you working on?  Perhaps we can divide and conquer.
> > >> There are a lot of updates in v1 that are not yet reflected in V2.
> > >> Plus in V2 we need an updated image.  So perhaps folks will contribute
> > >> if we can document the needs on the ticket.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >> Joe
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Matt Gilman <
> [hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > I've sent a couple emails which dev was CC'ed on. Since I wasn't
> > hearing
> > >> > anything there, I opened a JIRA ticket with them as well [1]. There
> > has
> > >> > been no activity on it yet. I was not aware of any INFRA chatroom.
> > >> >
> > >> > It sounds like when configured for an external build, we just need
> to
> > >> > commit the website to the SVN repository. It's not clear however, if
> > >> there
> > >> > is still a staging phase or if it's immediately published. These are
> > >> > questions I've asked in emails and in the ticket. The idea is that
> the
> > >> > website and the application build would be separate but would commit
> > to
> > >> the
> > >> > same repository so the documentation and the website can be can be
> > >> updated
> > >> > and deployed independently.
> > >> >
> > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9291
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Matt, Aldrin,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Just specifying you in particular since you were both actively
> > engaged
> > >> >> on it. But this is really for everyone:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Can we reengage on the website v2 effort?  I believe the last
> thing I
> > >> >> saw is that some important ticket or action was held up in INFRA.
> I
> > >> >> know that INFRA has a chatroom they are available in.  I think
> > >> >> generally if they fall behind or something falls through the cracks
> > >> >> they don't mind a ping.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> One thing with the change I know was part of the motivation was an
> > >> >> easier/more direct path to making updates.  That part wasn't
> totally
> > >> >> clear to me so will be curious to hear more about how that will
> work.
> > >> >> As Dan or others have pointed out we need to get a more direct line
> > >> >> from doc changes to getting them deployed.  And ideally we'd have
> the
> > >> >> extensions all up there as well.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Anyway - just want to get a view on where this is at.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks
> > >> >> Joe
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>