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

Move static content to GitHub pages #414

Closed
manics opened this issue Oct 13, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #417
Closed

Move static content to GitHub pages #414

manics opened this issue Oct 13, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #417

Comments

@manics
Copy link
Member

manics commented Oct 13, 2020

https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/working-with-github-pages/about-github-pages

  1. Since this will be a top level site https://www.openmicroscopy.org/ it has to be in a repo called <USER-OR-ORG>.github.io, so either ome/ome.github.io or use new GitHub user e.g. ome-www/ome-www.github.io.
  2. Add a CNAME file to this repo containing www.openmicroscopy.org
  3. Add a DNS CNAME www.openmicroscopy.org ➔ <USER-OR-ORG>.github.io
  4. Edit the baseurl in _config.yml
@sbesson
Copy link
Member

sbesson commented Oct 13, 2020

Adding a few thoughts, potentially to be captured as separate issues:

  • why is the new repo a requirement? we have ome/ome-help and ome/omero-figure successfully deploying to help.openmicroscopy.org and figure.openmicroscopy.org
  • in addition to the static website, the content the playbooks under https://github.com/ome/prod-playbooks/tree/master/www will need to be reviewed and at least the critical parts added to the config
  • from a quick glance, the most important bit missing are the XSD schemas hosted under www.openmicroscopy.org/Schemas previously proxied from another server. Some in-progress work and thoughts are captured in Migrate generated schemas pages under static website #286 (comment) but this requires some more input
  • from previous experience with help/figure, one downside of deploying with GitHub pages using a custom CNAME is that it complicates the staging of an integration branch. Alternatively would there be a mechanism to stage per-PR builds?

@manics
Copy link
Member Author

manics commented Oct 13, 2020

  1. I was going by what's implied by the docs, but if you've got a working configuration that's great!
  2. I think the tradeoff between easier production deployment and resilience is worth the additional configuration required on the CI side. One workaround is to have a permanently open PR that changes the configuration of the built CI site.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants