You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Splitting this out from #3766, to which it is still somewhat related as we should consider the impact on how many PRs to how many different branches are required for a change that spans the spec and the registries.
Originally, gh-pages sites needed to be on a gh-pages branch that (as ours does) typically has a completely different layout than main. That is no longer required, and it is much more common to deploy from a directory on main. Or at least from a directory on a branch that is no more different from main than any other working branch.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I totally agree with this one. This might be a personal preference but I usually find it confusing when each branch is a different project completely. I can start with this one after this is closed #1823
Note that the current build process seems spread across both main and gh-pages, plus duplication for the OAS and Arazzo specs, which probably needs to be unraveled.
Also, there are infrastructure bits under the curren top-level directory on main which should probably be pushed down into the directory that will replace the gh-pages branch to reduce clutter.
Splitting this out from #3766, to which it is still somewhat related as we should consider the impact on how many PRs to how many different branches are required for a change that spans the spec and the registries.
Originally, gh-pages sites needed to be on a
gh-pages
branch that (as ours does) typically has a completely different layout thanmain
. That is no longer required, and it is much more common to deploy from a directory onmain
. Or at least from a directory on a branch that is no more different frommain
than any other working branch.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: