Hi! @mattdm, I’m a big fan of the original idea, we don’t need to complicate too much and use a complex tasks force and a Complete revmap to another technology like Hugo for this specific project.
Here is the plan:
Phase 1 - DONE 19/11/2021
Add new favi icon.
Add new logo.
Update Montserrat and opensans provided by upstream.
Remove unnecessary directories, like coala and gnome.
Change glyphicons to fontawesome for licenses problem.
Remove background image in my opinion to blue and replace with a black one, less is more.
Change to light blue.
Update Jquery and bootstrap to the latest version.
Remove unnecesary bottstrap files.
Make the site responsive.
Fixed Dockerfile to copy favicon.xpm
Write commonblog and accept news translations under weblate.
Phase 4 DONE 19/11/2021
Close all issue with the message:
Your issue is to old, the site was suffer some change across the time and your issue could be obsolete, if you problem come again, feel free to open a new one.
Phase 5
Migrate CI from Travis to zuul, because Travis.org is not available anymore.
Note
Someone with admin right on Github can assign all the issues to me.
Questions?
Is there any technical decision behind don’t store this project on pagure instead of github?
For example:
Can we connect zuul to pagure? - Zuul-based-ci - Fedora Project Wiki see #147 on github.
Can we connect openshift to pagure?
Can we connect weblate to pagure?
I checked WCIDFF website and it looks like there are some broken URLs. For instance, I tried those relevant to ostree and GNOME source code and they appear to not work (GNOME one points to old version ‘3’ of GNOME). There might be other URLs that are not working.
If you think this the project is not retired and it is worth the effort, I might find some time to replace broken urls. What do you think?
Hi, I saw your post either on docs discussion or on Matrix ( I couldn’t determine clearly on my watch).
Yes, it is a docs project now and on my to-do list since April or so. Yes, it is worth to update and urgently needs one. Would be glad if we could work together (where I currently do not have too much time)
Very good. Since it’s all in a github repo I will issue a PR in the next few days with simply the replaced URLs. Do you allow me to contact you in the case I have some questions?
I requested maintainer access to this repo from Fedora Infrastructure so I could help out. I reviewed all of the pending merge requests on GitHub and merged them. I also fixed some merge conflicts and added the latest version of the translation strings into the project.
There is probably more that can be done here. I did not know that @pboy was interested in this too as a Docs project. There are probably ways we can team up on making this site more useful for everyone.
Next on my list is to figure out how the site is deployed, so the recent changes can be deployed to production. I am not sure exactly how this works yet.
Yes, I had a discussion with Matthew and Council at the beginning of this year and planned to start in April/May. But changes in the Docs Team shattered all my plans.
My idea was, at first, to update the existing links and at the same time check the Wiki pages it links to. And either transfer the content to Antora pages if not already done, or redirect the wiki page to the corresponding Docs page or delete it completely. We have to get rid of all that outdated documents, that mislead our users.
I planned to make it visible on the Docs home page and to restructure that page a bit to better attract new potential contributors. A first sketch is here. But I got just a rejection from @x3mboy for the change and one slight approval. That’s why I abandoned the idea. But I think we could find another way to include it in the docs home page.
In a next step I planned to improve the design, the over all UX, add new content areas and synchronize it contentwise with the existing contributor information.
I had contact to Ralph Bean, who created the site once ago. He would help with the technical details, but can not afford to contribute much time. Technically, I planned to relocate the page to the docs repo area, most likely to pagure, because that is most time efficient way for me to work with.
And yes, let’s team up to bring it forward! For me, it is another, more playful way to attract new contributors, an alternative to the deadly serious (and boring and perhaps off-putting) long listings.
Sorry, it wasn’t my intention to make you abandon the idea, I just thought it could be clearer, IIRC my comment was that some of the topics where supposed to be included in others (e.g. Design is inside Mindshare) or something similar.
I hope that front page could be improved, and that we can discuss without making anyone feel like it did a bad job or anything similar. I’m very very sorry.
So, what do we think of maintaining the current site as it is, and focus on getting the content updated? Truthfully, I am not sure how the deployment pipeline works, but it does seem like it is working, because all the PRs I merged last week are now shown on the staging site:
I have not pushed those changes to production, but it should be straightforward.
If we are content to maintain the existing site, we could focus on improving the existing experience with our current tool, without completely rewriting and rebuilding it. I would prefer not to rebuild/rewrite it, because there is a lot of hidden work required to make this possible, and none of that hidden work actually involves reviewing the incorrect information itself.
I think this could be a joint project with Fedora Docs, but it could also be a multi-team effort. I would like every Fedora team to feel empowered to own the information about their team in WCIDFF. It is a lot to ask any one person or any one team to maintain all the information published in this little site.
I am curious for other thoughts here. I was skeptical about the build pipeline, but after seeing the recent changes make it onto the staging site, I am thinking that we can salvage this without having to burn the old thing down completely.
@zlopez By the git commit log, you appear to be the right person to ask about the deployment pipeline for the WCIDFF site. How hard do you think it would be to migrate the existing deployment configuration from GitHub to GitLab?
I have this idea of grouping it underneath the Websites & Apps Team so it is more exposed to our community contributors and we can use existing workflow documentation for encouraging new contributors to get involved.
Uff sorry for span I will do it the next time