idle thoughts on more website automation

Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

idle thoughts on more website automation

Sean Busbey-2
In the 1.2.6 release I'm at the point where I need to update the
website. I've never done this step. I missed it for 1.2.5 and Stack
did the initial publishing sometime between 1.2.4 and 1.2.5.

Last night I started to do it, but fell asleep while reviewing the
changes from essentially taking the docs/ directory from the binary
tarball and placing it over the current 1.2 section of the website.

AFAICT there's nothing I've seen in reviewing so far that should
actually need a human. What do folks think about maybe having a
jenkins job that grabs the latest maintenance releases and if new
pushed their docs into the appropriate minor release specific part of
the website?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: idle thoughts on more website automation

Andrew Purtell
I see no reason why it shouldn't be automated. We can roll back the website
if a broken change is deployed, right?

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Sean Busbey <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In the 1.2.6 release I'm at the point where I need to update the
> website. I've never done this step. I missed it for 1.2.5 and Stack
> did the initial publishing sometime between 1.2.4 and 1.2.5.
>
> Last night I started to do it, but fell asleep while reviewing the
> changes from essentially taking the docs/ directory from the binary
> tarball and placing it over the current 1.2 section of the website.
>
> AFAICT there's nothing I've seen in reviewing so far that should
> actually need a human. What do folks think about maybe having a
> jenkins job that grabs the latest maintenance releases and if new
> pushed their docs into the appropriate minor release specific part of
> the website?
>



--
Best regards,

   - Andy

If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond
Teller (via Peter Watts)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: idle thoughts on more website automation

Sean Busbey-3
yep, it's just as git as everything else.

filed HBASE-18189 so this doesn't get lost.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Andrew Purtell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I see no reason why it shouldn't be automated. We can roll back the website
> if a broken change is deployed, right?
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Sean Busbey <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> In the 1.2.6 release I'm at the point where I need to update the
>> website. I've never done this step. I missed it for 1.2.5 and Stack
>> did the initial publishing sometime between 1.2.4 and 1.2.5.
>>
>> Last night I started to do it, but fell asleep while reviewing the
>> changes from essentially taking the docs/ directory from the binary
>> tarball and placing it over the current 1.2 section of the website.
>>
>> AFAICT there's nothing I've seen in reviewing so far that should
>> actually need a human. What do folks think about maybe having a
>> jenkins job that grabs the latest maintenance releases and if new
>> pushed their docs into the appropriate minor release specific part of
>> the website?
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond
> Teller (via Peter Watts)



--
Sean
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: idle thoughts on more website automation

Misty Stanley-Jones-3
So I am a little confused about what this step does. I guess I didn't know
we did this. We do have the website getting updated daily now, hands-free.
What am I missing?

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Sean Busbey <[hidden email]> wrote:

> yep, it's just as git as everything else.
>
> filed HBASE-18189 so this doesn't get lost.
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Andrew Purtell <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I see no reason why it shouldn't be automated. We can roll back the
> website
> > if a broken change is deployed, right?
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Sean Busbey <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> In the 1.2.6 release I'm at the point where I need to update the
> >> website. I've never done this step. I missed it for 1.2.5 and Stack
> >> did the initial publishing sometime between 1.2.4 and 1.2.5.
> >>
> >> Last night I started to do it, but fell asleep while reviewing the
> >> changes from essentially taking the docs/ directory from the binary
> >> tarball and placing it over the current 1.2 section of the website.
> >>
> >> AFAICT there's nothing I've seen in reviewing so far that should
> >> actually need a human. What do folks think about maybe having a
> >> jenkins job that grabs the latest maintenance releases and if new
> >> pushed their docs into the appropriate minor release specific part of
> >> the website?
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond
> > Teller (via Peter Watts)
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>
Loading...