Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

WIP: Pull the new front page website from ned-kelly #590

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

@Robbt
Copy link
Member

commented Nov 8, 2018

This is just pulling the commit from @hairmare that preserves the commits that @ned-kelly did.

@frecuencialibre

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 12, 2018

is this ready for merge? or do we need to test travis locally?

@hairmare

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Nov 12, 2018

I see the following points that we should look into:

  • remove node_modules vendor from merge
  • ensure that we always use a fresh build (and thus don't need to commit the build results) on each deploy
  • clarify what's up with site/LICENSE (which is MIT contrary to the rest of the repo and and should probably be CC-* for the content and possibly AGPL for the technical parts of the site)
    • add MIT statement to LICENCE_3RD_PARTY file
    • get neds ok about re-licensing site content to CC-by-sa/4.0
  • link site and explain subdir in main readme
  • clean up links to /docs/, docker repo and everything else
  • make sure GitHUb pages CNAME is in the root dir
  • exclude from release tarball in libretime/dev_tools/release/release.sh
@Robbt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Nov 12, 2018

So as an alternative to merging this PR and pushing the site into the core repo we could also just have @ned-kelly transfer it (when we open up that permission and set the current site to be docs.libretime.org.

This would appear to resolve some of these above issues at least with the multiple licenses, node_modules and if we keep node then we could just build it.

I have never setup a github site or travis CI so I don't know how it works exactly but if just transferring the existing repo would be easier we could still go that route.

@hairmare

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Nov 12, 2018

The thing about the node_modules is that this PR still kills my browser when I look at the changes in the we view. I tried to fix this already on the changes already in the PR but will need to rebase them a few times until the .gitignore matches up with the actual contents of the merge. Right now this would make the libretime source grow considerably by pulling the full build environment that made it into the tarball.

The licencing won't be much of an issue, it just needs some proper attribution in like the LICENSE_3RD_PARTY file. We would be sublicensing the MIT code under our license which isn't much of an issue for MIT afaik (ianal, ymmv, etc).

Relicensing the actual contents to a real content license (like any CC-* one) is something we can only do with Ned's consent, but it would be smart. The current situation with the actual docs being under a software rather than a documentation licence isn't perfect already so it would be nice not to add to that.

What I forgot to mention is that the travis parts are already well tested and I don't really see an issue why they wouldn't work. It's really more that I don't want everyone's working copy to explode just because we merge this in it's vendored form.

@hairmare hairmare changed the title Pull the new front page website from ned-kelly WIP: Pull the new front page website from ned-kelly Nov 12, 2018

@frecuencialibre

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 14, 2018

i agree with @hairmare that adding almost 100,000 lines to the main codebase is not a great idea. i've said so before. cloning already downloads hundreds of mb. i created #584 which adds the site to the main repo only out of sheer desperation as weeks passed and we were unable to simply create a repository for the site. sorry for the tone, i'm frustrated by how much effort ahs been needed for this comparatively simple task. If an owner creates a repo for the site, then i think we can chip away at the todo list above there, and launch when done. I'm guessing ned's putting time into other tasks and so wouldn't wait up for him.

@hairmare

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Nov 15, 2018

@frecuencialibre I'll try to take care of the points in my comment over the weeked. If you would like to work on the site you can do so at ned-kelly/libretime-website. I'm watching the repo and I also have write access to it so I can review/merge stuff there as well. If we do end up merging anything there I'll just rebase the contents of this PR. If you want to base your work on my stuff already in this PR you can create a PR against the radiorabe:chore/integrate-site branch this PR is based off but I would probably recommend to PR on the original repo at the moment.
Sorry about not getting on this earlier, it's simply that I usually try to look at actual technical stuff first and marketing stuff like this is a bit less pressing on my prioritized todo list.

@frecuencialibre

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 15, 2018

Thanks Lucas!

I usually try to look at actual technical stuff first and marketing stuff like this is a bit less pressing on my prioritized todo list.

Perfect. Hopefully we can be proactive to reduce dependence on you for this kind of thing.

@ned-kelly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Nov 19, 2018

Hi guys - just getting back on my feet after being away for the last 30 days - Glad this is making some progress, i've got a bucketload of things to catch-up on, sing out if there's any issues in with this that directly requires my involvement - It looks like you've got it all under control for now!

@hairmare

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Nov 21, 2018

Hey @ned-kelly Welcome back!

If you could publicly to consent us re-licensing sites content (ie. the copy you wrote) to CC-bs-sa/4.0 (an actual content licence and not a code license) that would help me check off another box #590 (comment).

We also invited you to the Maintainers team on GitHub so you can maintain this after the merge. Please check the C4 for more details on a Maintainers responsibilities. You can accept or decline the invite on the main orga page: https://github.com/LibreTime

Cheers

@ned-kelly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Nov 21, 2018

@Robbt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Nov 27, 2018

Is this ready to go or do we need to do more work before we can push it live ?

@hairmare

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Nov 28, 2018

It's almost there, just some cleanup and small docs fixes as per #590 (comment)

@gusaus

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 11, 2018

Are we waiting for a particular person to resolve the remaining issues in #590 (comment) or can others help?

@Robbt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jan 18, 2019

I think we should consider this change as something that we do to "launch" the beta of LibreTime and we should prioritize fixing the other issues in #544 but do whatever ground work is needed to make this happen.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.