[mapserver-dev] Rethinking our doc site build workflow (+vote)
Stephan Meißl
stephan at meissl.name
Tue Apr 8 01:58:20 PDT 2014
Hi Thomas,
thanks for investigating this. I agree, Travis seems to be the better
option.
cu
Stephan
On 04/07/2014 07:59 PM, Thomas Gratier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Readthedocs suppose to duplicate your source content for each language.
> It does no deal with i18n support. You can see at
> https://github.com/rtfd/readthedocs.org/issues/139.
> To illustrate,for exemple, opendatamanual mentionned in the issue is
> always not working with i18n
> https://readthedocs.org/search/project/?q=opendatamanual
> Moreover, the docs seems to confirm too
> https://read-the-docs.readthedocs.org/en/latest/localization.html
> So I don't think it's the best although I think it's perfect for "one
> language" project.
> I would prefer Travis if possible by using Github hooks.
>
> Cheers
>
> Thomas Gratier
>
>
> 2014-04-07 17:49 GMT+02:00 Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com
> <mailto:dmorissette at mapgears.com>>:
>
> +1
>
> Daniel
>
>
> On 14-04-04 4:55 PM, thomas bonfort wrote:
>
> PSC,
>
> In light of the recent projectsvm downtime and the (increasing,
> given
> the new translations) load we are putting on that server while
> building our docs, I would like to propose that we transition our
> build process to use travis-ci for the compilation part.
>
> In clear, docs would be automatically built on travis-ci.org
> <http://travis-ci.org> once a
> commit is pushed on the stable or master branch, and would then be
> scp'd/rsync'd to the public projectvm directory on success.
>
> Advantages:
> - no need to maintain build scripts on the projectsvm
> - the actual travis config files are simple and minimal:
> https://github.com/tbonfort/__docs/commit/__1d178ab6e6d0765adfbb0fea40404a__6a1803a969
> <https://github.com/tbonfort/docs/commit/1d178ab6e6d0765adfbb0fea40404a6a1803a969>
> (without the logic to publish to mapserver.org
> <http://mapserver.org> yet, though)
>
> Inconveniences:
> - we rely on an external service we have no control on. we can
> always
> switch back to the current solution if needed (no
> www.mapserver.org <http://www.mapserver.org>
> downtime, the docs would just not be in sync while we transitioned).
> - building the PDFs has a non-negligeable impact on build times and
> apt packages needed to be installed on the travis instances. They
> would therefore be disabled by default, but might be enabled on a
> case-by-case basis if the commit message contains a magic keyword.
> - it might seem we are loosing control as to what is published
> on the
> mapserver.org <http://mapserver.org> website (given the
> resulting website is automatically
> published). In practice this is more or less already the case
> with the
> automatic builds happening on the projectsvm.
>
> I've had confirmation from the travis team that we are not abusing
> their system by implementing this:
>
> ==============================__==============================__=======
> Hey Thomas,
>
> Thanks for getting in touch and checking with us!
>
> We absolutely don't mind you using our service to build and push
> your
> documentation site, quite the opposite.
>
> We're always happy to see people adopt Travis CI in unexpected
> and new
> ways, so by all means, ship it!
>
> Cheers, Mathias
>
> --
> Mathias Meyer
> ==============================__==============================__=========
>
> Before investing more time on this, I will need a go from the
> PSC. I'm
> going to be offline next week and unable to respond, but will start
> the transition at my return if no -1s are casted.
>
> +1 Use Travis-ci platform to build and publish mapserver website
>
> best regards,
> thomas
More information about the mapserver-dev
mailing list