Open jcbrand opened 9 years ago
big question, requires discussion. I propose to do that next week.
On 6 Mar 2015, at 13:52, JC Brand notifications@github.com wrote:
Hi @pilz https://github.com/pilz and @cornae https://github.com/cornae As far as I know, Patterns-site was forked out of Patterns to keep Patterns small, right? Are there any other reasons why Patterns-site was created?
Currently a new clone of Patterns-site is 69MB
jc@ploneintra-13:33:~/tmp$ du -hs Patterns-site/ 69M Patterns-site jc@ploneintra-13:43:~/tmp/Patterns-site (gh-pages)$ du -hs .git 43M .git and a new clone of Patterns is 66MB
jc@ploneintra-13:36:~/tmp (container)$ du -hs Patterns 66M Patterns jc@ploneintra-13:43:~/tmp/Patterns (master)$ du -hs .git 47M .git Without the .git folders Patterns is 19MB and Patterns-site 27MB.
So there's actually not much of a size benefit at all when one ignores the git histories, and instead we get much duplication and confusion.
For example:
There are now demo folders in both repos and we have to take care to keep them synchronized. Patterns has the old version of the site and Patternslib-site has a new version I'm currently working on pat-clone and I'm not sure where I should put the demo files. I previously added pat-masonry's demo files in Patterns, but now I think @cornae https://github.com/cornae is not even aware of that because he works in Patterns-site.
To avoid these problems I therefore propose that we merge the two repos again.
We can purge the old unused Binary files http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Internals-Maintenance-and-Data-Recovery#Removing-Objects from git and thereby make the .git folders much smaller.
This will solve the size problem.
For archaeological purposes we can fork the current Patterns repo (call it Patterns-archive or something) so that we still have a copy of the old git history with all the old Binary files.
What do you say?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Patternslib/Patterns-site/issues/4.
Alexander Pilz SYSLAB.COM GmbH, Landwehrstrasse 60-62, 80336 Munich, Germany Tel: +49 89 3063589-0 - Fax: +49 89 3063589-9 http://www.syslab.com - Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 135057 Steuernummer 143/184/50154 - Ust.-ID: DE212842815
@wichert: According to @cornae you have some reasons for why it's a good idea to have Patterns-site separate from Patterns. Could you please mention them here or point me to a place where I can read them?
We had several reasons for the split initially:
The split helped to address these issues, but introduced some new ones. I still see some value in having the main website separate from the code, but I'm not entirely sure how strongly opinionated I am about that. Considering that others are doing the majority of the work now I certainly don't want to block a merge if the current developers feel that is the best approach.
Thanks @wichert for the feedback. Good to know the original motivations.
I find the current situation untenable due to the duplication of documentation and extra work required to keep the two repos in sync.
during development you want to use a modular setup in demos to ease with debugging. For the website you really want to use a bundle. A special command to do a search-and-replace on all files was added to facilitate that, but that led to unnecessary conflicts and accidental bad commits.
We should be able to come up with a way to use require.js for dev and a bundle file for production. Either via the URL query string or having a dev.html page or something else.
having all website content in the root of the source package made for a messy directory structure.
True but a price worth paying I think. We can ignore all the Jekyll stuff in bower.json so that at least the bower package is much cleaner.
we used the public website to test changes as well, which made it always out of sync with the current release and/or offer a development snapshot instead of a proper release as download.
The public website also acts as the documentation store, so frequent updates to it as patterns are changed or introduced are to be expected. I think the important thing is to manage releases properly.
The current/live release should always have a release tag in git (and on Github). Experimental changes and tests of new markup should go into feature branches and only merged when acceptable.
However, we don't necessarily need to merge the repositories to fix that.
Based on that work, we can then complete the website by doing:
This item might become current again since the design update I did today to patternslib.com
I temporarily added the demos in a quick and dirty way to the site to make them run (some or broken still like calendar).
I also copied the documentation over to the Jekyll site — at least for the moment — so that I can view and maintain it there.
Hi @pilz and @cornae
As far as I know, Patterns-site was forked out of Patterns to keep Patterns small, right? Are there any other reasons why Patterns-site was created?
Currently a new clone of Patterns-site is 69MB
and a new clone of Patterns is 66MB
Without the
.git
folders Patterns is 19MB and Patterns-site 27MB.So there's actually not much of a size benefit at all when one ignores the git histories, and instead we get much duplication and confusion.
For example:
I'm currently working on pat-clone and I'm not sure where I should put the demo files. I previously added pat-masonry's demo files in Patterns, but now I think @cornae is not even aware of that because he works in Patterns-site.
To avoid these problems I therefore propose that we merge the two repos again.
We can purge the old unused Binary files from git and thereby make the
.git
folders much smaller.This will solve the size problem.
For archaeological purposes we can fork the current Patterns repo (call it Patterns-archive or something) so that we still have a copy of the old git history with all the old Binary files.
What do you say?