New subject: [Jack-Devel] jackaudio.org pull request

4 May 2016

For ardour.org and community.ardour.org, we mirror the git repo to the
webserver and make it rebuild the page(s) after a receiver. It works pretty
easily - edit, commit, push ... gets mirrored automatically, website is
rebuilt.

But I'm fine with any approach, really. It is true that the
rebuild-on-server thing does make slightly more of a demand on the
webserver config.

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Markus Seeber &lt;markus.seeber(a)mailbox.org&gt;
wrote:

...
  I will think about that since that could solve some
other problems too,
 like being able to insert build date or commit hash or a tag into the
 generated page.

 Would you prefer the webserver to rebuild the page after a push? This
 would require jekyll to be available on the webserver in the required
 version (maintenance effort).
 The other possibility would be to have discrete releases where _site is
 rebuilt and tags are created, which would not require jekyll on the
 webserver.
 Depends on how you or anyone else maintaining the hosting would like to
 have that handled.

 If no decision is made, I'd rather tag discrete releases for now.

 On 05/03/2016 08:48 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
  Well, either that or there needs to be post-pull
hook that rebuilds _site
 ...

 On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Markus Seeber <  markus.seeber(a)spectralbird.de
 > wrote:
> This is correct. It is in sync with the changes I mentioned with the
> last "pull request mail". The reason for not rebuilding "_site"
on every
> commit is, that changes to markdown files may generate a lot of changes
> in "_site" so I do not commit "_site" on every change.
>
> I can create tags in future to signal a release, would this be  appropriate?
 >
> On 05/03/2016 08:05 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
>> Markus - pulled the site, but the contents of the _site folder/dir do  not
 >> appear up to date ...
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Markus Seeber <
>> markus.seeber(a)spectralbird.de&gt; wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/05/2016 03:38 PM, JoergSorge wrote:
>>>>> Do you think the software is in a state such that end users can
 build,
 >>>>> install, configure and use it
themselves?
>>>> That's a good question ;-) I know, I have a lot to do to make
install
>>>> and docs user friendly...
>>>> Regards Jörg
>>>>
>>> I tracked your request anyway:
>>> https://github.com/jackaudio/jackaudio.github.com/issues/45
>>>
>>> If you think it is worth sharing, I'll include it.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Markus
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Jack-Devel mailing list
>>> Jack-Devel(a)lists.jackaudio.org
>>> http://lists.jackaudio.org/listinfo.cgi/jack-devel-jackaudio.org
>>> 

Re: [Jack-Devel] jackaudio.org pull request