MOTHBALLED-graphviz
MOTHBALLED-graphviz copied to clipboard
ellson
Use github for hosting the website
I guess that would save you a lot of trouble. graphviz.github.io sounds not too bad.
I was thinking about this as well, but the Graphviz site also includes a forum, whereas Github Pages are only static sites right? Still, could be helpful for hosting most of the documentation (which is also included with the software I believe), which can then also be improved and edited by the community. What do the maintainers think? Something we can help with?
Yes, we have a bunch of content in drupal forums, and other content in mailman, and bug reports in Mantis.
We would like to
On May 30, 2016, at 5:46 AM, Erwin Janssen [email protected] wrote:
I was thinking about this as well, but the Graphviz site also includes a forum, whereas Github Pages are only static sites right? Still, could be helpful for hosting most of the documentation (which is also included with the software I believe), which can then also be improved and edited by the community. What do the maintainers think? Something we can help with?
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ellson/graphviz/issues/88#issuecomment-222455589, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/ACtWz1qX95Nj9w8yrFOlmunOcjCyh6mMks5qGrHcgaJpZM4IpoC7.
Until we get a new or better home, it might make sense to use github as a secondary site, for the documentation and binary packages. The documentation is already html. We would just lose the drupal envelope.
On 05/30/2016 12:33 PM, Stephen North wrote:
Yes, we have a bunch of content in drupal forums, and other content in mailman, and bug reports in Mantis.
We would like to
On May 30, 2016, at 5:46 AM, Erwin Janssen [email protected] wrote:
I was thinking about this as well, but the Graphviz site also includes a forum, whereas Github Pages are only static sites right? Still, could be helpful for hosting most of the documentation (which is also included with the software I believe), which can then also be improved and edited by the community. What do the maintainers think? Something we can help with?
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ellson/graphviz/issues/88#issuecomment-222455589, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/ACtWz1qX95Nj9w8yrFOlmunOcjCyh6mMks5qGrHcgaJpZM4IpoC7.
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ellson/graphviz/issues/88#issuecomment-222525031, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AFT_Mgob1y8LUkYUSENxfKKFrAUAae71ks5qGxFmgaJpZM4IpoC7.Web Bug from https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AFT_Mn3vhkHqoXNEqVtmzc9H9GajT0qbks5qGxFmgaJpZM4IpoC7.gif
@ErwinJanssen It could be well worth looking at the github help on the use of Jekyll for static site generation and/or take a look at the python Hyde.
Either can make regenerating the web pages and publishing them to github, (or a later site), easy.
The pull request I created earlier is a quick and dirty way to get the documentation on Github pages.
@GadgetSteve Those links look promising, maybe it can be used to improve the documentation when it is decided Github pages will be a more permanent solution.
Hosting the documentation on a Github pages might make it easier to maintain and more people can contribute as well.
Erwin,
Thanks very mich for this ... committed.
http://ellson.github.io/graphviz/
We've just made a decision to migrate graphviz.org onto GitHub (subject to any feedback from GitHub admins).
This is a great starting point.
John
On 05/31/2016 04:48 PM, Erwin Janssen wrote:
The pull request I created earlier is a quick and dirty way to get the documentation on Github pages.
@GadgetSteve https://github.com/GadgetSteve Those links look promising, maybe it can be used to improve the documentation when it is decided Github pages will be a more permanent solution.
Hosting the documentation on a Github pages might make it easier to maintain and more people can contribute as well.
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ellson/graphviz/issues/88#issuecomment-222815484, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/ABcTPZ2U6gFPLnNw9c2yQI36c5i_I4FRks5qHJ6BgaJpZM4IpoC7.
John @ellson & @ErwinJanssen - Switching the website to Jekyll/Hyde could be well worth the effort whichever hosting solution is decided on as:
- the editable "Source" becomes a set of reStructuredText rather than html which is easier to edit
- in Hyde the Diagrams can actually be re-generated from dot files automatically so would automatically reflect the current processing of the examples this makes it really easy to spot when an exaple is broken or produces unexpected results
- re-buiding and publishing becomes a single command whichever hosting solution you use
- only the changed files are normally ge-generated & uploaded think make for a website
- changes in style are quick and easy
Actually, most of the documentation web pages are generated from simpler data, and the figures are also generated. See doc/infosrc.
On 6/2/16 12:00 AM, Steve (Gadget) Barnes wrote:
John @ellson https://github.com/ellson & @ErwinJanssen https://github.com/ErwinJanssen - Switching the website to Jekyll/Hyde could be well worth the effort whichever hosting solution is decided on as:
- the editable "Source" becomes a set of reStructuredText rather than html which is easier to edit
- in Hyde the Diagrams can actually be /re/-generated from dot files automatically so would automatically reflect the current processing of the examples /this makes it really easy to spot when an exaple is broken or produces unexpected results/
- re-buiding and publishing becomes a single command whichever hosting solution you use
- only the changed files are normally ge-generated & uploaded /think make for a website/
- changes in style are quick and easy
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ellson/graphviz/issues/88#issuecomment-223189840, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/ABdZPsUyzAhP5kZ7n_-iDEVLhfRoBfJ-ks5qHlVBgaJpZM4IpoC7.Web Bug from https://github.com/notifications/beacon/ABdZPj8NziZ3I1ufDGKaaZi1Xi7xedslks5qHlVBgaJpZM4IpoC7.gif
Checking ie #1131 guess the import didn't worked well
It contains a link to https://github.com/~north/cgi-bin/webdot1.7.11/webdot.cgi//~north/webdot1.7.11/tut2.dot.dot.map
An automated script can only do so much - I cannot get to the original xml from work at the moment as guess what - the original is on graphvis.com - I will try to get a chance to take a look at this specific one tonight but I can only go in what was in the xml export which does not include:
- Images
- Attachments
- Font changes
- etc.
Please, if anybody notices errors or omissions from specific ported tickets point them out and I will attempt to address them manually - I personally do not have the time to go through 1032 tickets looking for issues.
Note that some issues will result from example code being interpreted as markdown.
Hmmm ... can't you archive / webcrawler the old issues into a static HTML site and put it in a new repo on github instead? Adding 'bad' issues to the issue queue will make issue triage a pitb. Or is the old server/site completely dead?
@clemens-tolboom - the old issues site is not reliably accessible or more accurately is reliably inaccessible - this is the whole point of the move to github. What I got was an xml export from that server. While I haven't had the time to look at 100% of the transposed issues those that I have looked at seem to have been cleanly migrated other than this one - While I agree that this is a PITB it is probably better for most people than a bug tracker that only people who do not have any available time have access to.
#1131 Updated to make more sense!
I have just completed a run though the ported bugs looking for older issues that match git log entries with "Fix bug" followed by an Original ID that was in the ported Issues list and have marked those that matched closed. This moved about 80 to closed.