On 31 August 2010 14:39, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Rahul, > I just added the xdoc version of the documentation present in the > package.html files.
The package.html files are normally used to annotate the Javadoc output. However in this case these files have got a lot more content than is normally present in the Javadoc. > Do you think these last can be removed, since > would be redundant with the new developers guide? There should at least be minimal package.html files for Javadoc usage, so I don't think the files should be removed entirely, but they could be replaced with much simpler versions. > At this stage, we > should maintain two different data sources with same information, I'd > propose to drop the existing one, but let choose together. > Another small question: in src/conf there is a MANIFEST.MF[1] file > that contains informations that maven can generate automatically, do > you think we can drop it, when dropping the ant build? +1 to dropping MANIFEST.MF. > Thanks in advance, have a nice day! > Simo > > [1] > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/digester/trunk/src/conf/MANIFEST.MF > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Simone Tripodi >> <simone.trip...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi All guys, >>> since the Commons PMC awarded me giving me the writing rights, I'd >>> like to work on the Digester to publish a new release, since a new >>> feature will be contained. >> <snip/> >> >> Super! >> >> >>> For what I can see, there are few build-related minor issues: >>> >>> - ant build: dropped in Gump, do we want to maintain it or completely >>> remove? >> <snap/> >> >> Upto you, can remove IMO. >> >> >>> - maven build: do we want to maintain the current directory structure >>> or move to the default structure? >> <snip/> >> >> If you want to improve it, great. >> >> >>> - documentation: It would be nice, IMHO, porting the current >>> documentation from the package.html files to apt format to be included >>> in the generated site. Existing xdoc can also ported to the apt ormat. >>> WDYT? >> <snap/> >> >> +1 to porting to package.html to a "guide" on the website. >> >> I like xdoc, I don't like apt much. However, its unlikely that I will >> be writing much [digester] documentation hereafter. Perhaps its best >> that you write the new docs in the format of your choosing and leave >> any of the old stuff as-is. >> >> >>> - code: a review wouldn't be bad :P >>> >> <snip/> >> >> Generally looked OK. You can help yourself to Checkstyle, Clirr, CPD, >> FindBugs, PMD, RAT and friends (in fact, it'd be great to do that >> before the release anyway). >> >> -Rahul >> >> >> >>> Please let me know, have a nice day!!! >>> Simo >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
