Re: git-scm.com status report

> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 03:33:50AM +0100, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> We (the Git project) got control of the git-scm.com domain this year. We
>> have never really had an "official" website, but I think a lot of people
>> consider this to be one.
>>
>> This is an overview of the current state, as well as some possible
>> issues and future work.
>
> Thanks everybody, for your responses here and off-list. After my mail
> got posted to HN, I got quite a lot of private responses, including
> offers to sponsor hosting, work on the site, etc. I'm still working my
> way through them, but I wanted to try to respond in aggregate here.
>
> First, a few clarifications:
>
>   - The money for the site wasn't mentioned to me by GitHub at all.  I'm
>     quite sure they would continue to sponsor the site financially if
>     need be. The only reason I didn't promise that is because I hadn't
>     arranged it specifically, and "step 0" seemed like first making sure
>     our costs were reasonable.
>
>   - Spinning the site out of GitHub's Heroku account isn't an urgent or
>     impending change. It came out of a conversation I had with people
>     auditing the GitHub account, where it is clearly a funny historical
>     anomaly. So I suspect we could just stay there indefinitely if need
>     be. But it seems to me like the right thing is to move it out for
>     two reasons:
>
>       1. The site was always intended to serve the Git community, not
>          GitHub, and it has increasingly become a community asset (e.g.,
>          with the transfer of the domain name). The hosting assets
>          should be held by the community, too, to help with things like
>          continuity. If I get hit by a bus, the rest of the Git PLC
>          should have access to the site without having to figure out who
>          owns what.
>
>       2. Right now I can't add any other co-admins to handle operational
>          issues. So the bus factor and load of that part of operating
>          the site can't be spread.
>
> The responses I've gotten fall into a few buckets, I think:
>
>   - Yes, the current hosting cost really is unnecessarily high. Most of
>     this is due to scaling wrong. The main costs are:
>
>       1. Using 2x dynos; these have 1GB of RAM versus 512MB. The site
>          does seem to use about 750MB. I have no idea why that is the
>          case. There's probably some low-hanging fruit in reducing the
>          memory use to keep it below 512MB, but I don't think anybody
>          has dug in there.
>
>       2. The site is scaled by using 3 dynos. It would be simpler and
>          cheaper to stick a CDN in front of it, since the pages change
>          very rarely. That's something I haven't looked into setting up
>          yet.
>
>          The prerequisite to using a CDN is actually making sure the
>          content is deterministic and cacheable. There was a nice PR
>          opened at https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/941 towards
>          that end.
>
>   - It's mostly silly for this to be a Rails app at all. It's a static
>     site which occasionally sucks in and formats new content (like the
>     latest git version, new manpages, etc). The intent here was to make
>     something that would "just run" forever and pick up new versions
>     without human intervention. And that _does_ work, but it also makes
>     things more expensive and complicated than they need to be.
>
>     So a viable alternative is to use some kind of static site
>     generator and have someone (or something) responsible for pulling in
>     the new git versions occasionally.
>
>     A few people have expressed interesting this. There's some
>     preliminary work here:
>
>       https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/941
>
>     and at least GitLab has expressed some interest. So I'll let people
>     coordinate in that PR or a new one what the result should look like.
>     Working patches trump discussion. :)
>
>     I have also talked with the GitHub Pages people, and they think
>     hosting it as a Jekyll page wouldn't be a big deal performance-wise
>     (with the caveat that we'd need to pre-render the asciidoctor bits
>     ourselves, as Jekyll doesn't do asciidoc). So that's a viable option
>     for hosting it for effectively free (though I think we _would_ still
>     want to put a CDN in front of it). But if somebody has an
>     alternative option, that's fine, too.
>
>   - Some people offered to help with running the site, or making major
>     transitions (like converting to a static site). The most important
>     thing to me there is that we have a solid maintenance plan. So I
>     would want some evidence that anybody doing a major work would stick
>     around in the community afterwards, or that it be done in a way that
>     the handoff back to community members is easy. So I'd probably look
>     for somebody already involved in the community, or somebody who
>     wants to join it building up that trust by taking on site
>     responsibilities over time.
>
>   - Lots of people asked about small tasks to do. Mostly reviewing and
>     responding to issues and PR is the simplest thing. You can do it in
>     a drive-by way, and that helps take the load off of me. As the same
>     reviewers show up more and more, I think we can build a community
>     and I'd eventually hand out greater access to the site to match.
>
>     I notice I've got over 100 GitHub notifications from people sifting
>     through back-issues, so that will take some time to go through. I'm
>     hoping a lot of them are "already fixed, click closed". :)
>
>   - Several people offered money out of pocket to pay for hosting, and
>     several hosters contacted me to work out hosting deals ranging from
>     cheap to free. I'd prefer to explore the technical bits for now and
>     see what the final shape and cost actually is (if we move to a
>     non-Rails site, then Rails hosting is less appealing, obviously).
>
> So that's where we're at. I think the next step is either sticking a CDN
> in front of Heroku and dialing down the scaling there, or moving to a
> static site. I'll probably stall for a bit and see if patches for the
> latter materialize, and if not pursue the CDN thing (where most of the
> work will be administrative in getting it set up, not technical. I think
> that makes it more or less my thing to do, but if anybody is interested
> in setting it up and handing off an account to the project, that
> certainly makes things easy).
>
> Thanks again for everybody who has offered to help, and everybody who
> continues to do so.
>
> -Peff