Le lun. 26 avr. 2021 à 17:08, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> a écrit :
>
> See below
>
> > On Apr 18, 2021, at 3:21 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 18:40, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:gillese...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le dim. 18 avr. 2021 à 15:38, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 13:40, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that git also has its gitlink and sub modules features that we could
> >>>> use here.
> >>>
> >>> Are they easy to use?
> >>> Who is going to design and test the replacement?
> >>> Will such a design really be easier to use?
> >>> There's no point changing the publication strategy if it is not an
> >>> improvement.
> >>
> >> Quoting Ralph Goers:
> >> ---CUT---
> >> When I release Log4j I rum mvn site followed by "mvn site:stage
> >> -DstagingDirectory=$HOME/log4j” on my laptop. I validate the site
> >> locally and then zip the site, cd to my logging-log4j-site project and
> >> unzip it where I want it to go.
> >> ---CUT---
> >>
> >> Is that the "publication strategy" which you think is not worth
> >> changing to?
> >>
> >> That's not more complicated than what I do now (mentioned in the
> >> other thread).
> >
> > AFAIK the steps you mention in the other thread can be replaced by:
> >
> > $ mvn clean site-deploy # for single module components
> > OR
> > $ mvn clean site site:stage scm-publish:publish-scm # multi module
> >
> > I'm not sure that the proposed method is no more complicated than the
> > present arrangements.
> >
> > The proposal would be two local workspaces to maintain, and two repos
> > for each component.
> >
> > There's also the issue that most of the poms would likely need
> > changing, and the change would not be as simple as changing a URL.
>
> If you use "mvn site:stage -DstagingDirectory=wherever/my/local/site/is” then
> you don’t need to change the poms.
>
> >
> > As well as setting up all the extra Git branches and/or repos.
> >
> > I don't know if a website can be served from a combination of SVN and
> > Git sources, so the top-level website would need to be converted to
> > Git, and something done about the dormant and sandbox sites - probably
> > would need at least one more Git repo to hold them.
>
> Why wouldn’t the dormant and sandbox sites just be part of the main web site?
>
> >
> > The only advantage I can see is that there could be a public staging
> > repo for each site.
> >
> > Is that worth all the extra setup?
> >
> > And who is doing the work?
>
> Well, someone will have to volunteer.
OK to create the
commons-site
"git" repository?
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
