> If the website was actually built from content hosted at > this repository it would make more sense (and I think we *should* be > producing the website this way, although I don't believe we're doing > that right now). Parts of the site are: https://www.rdoproject.org/packaging/ is generated from https://github.com/redhat-openstack/openstack-packaging-doc and the rest is wiki but it is a good suggestion to replace it with a light-weight CMS backed by git.

Rich, do you have any suggestion for a CMS doing that? To get this rolling and also try GH issues for the website: https://github.com/redhat-openstack/rdo-docs/issues/1

Le lundi 16 mars 2015 à 17:44 +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy a écrit : > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 05:06:11PM +0100, Alan Pevec wrote: >>> If the website was actually built from content hosted at >>> this repository it would make more sense (and I think we *should* be >>> producing the website this way, although I don't believe we're doing >>> that right now). >> >> Parts of the site are: >> https://www.rdoproject.org/packaging/ is generated from >> https://github.com/redhat-openstack/openstack-packaging-doc >> and the rest is wiki but it is a good suggestion to replace it with a >> light-weight CMS backed by git. > > IIRC, community.redhat.com runs on Middleman, which is light-weight, > static and `git` based run by the OSAS team at Red Hat. We could > probably use something like that? Yep. I have a ready to deploy ansible task for a automated builder ( even if I am looking more and more on using jenkins or something similar ) We are using this for project atomic, for gluster and community.redhat.com. And we (osas) are looking at a converter from mediawiki to middleman, for the ovirt project.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 02:18:29PM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote: > We talked, a year ago, about moving the site to middleman. At the time, the > sentiment was that we wanted to keep it in a wiki, for ease of participation > from the community... Storing the content in git does not substantially reduce the ability of the community to make contributions. Ideally, we handle it sort like the upstream openstack docs: all changes, from anybody, even project maintainers, go in via the same mechanism (either a github PR or a gerrit review, depending on preference)... ...and people get to use their editor of choice, rather than being forced to abuse their web browser as an editor. > It's definitely worth looking at again, and would let us keep all of this > stuff in revision control rather than having it in SPOF database. Among the many advantages this would bring! Others being performance, flexibility in choosing the rendering engine, more transparent change history, etc.