Yes, I guess we can get away with the Maven generated site, if the standard
ASF footer and that conference ad thingy can be added. It would be more
rational to push through with the conversion to DocBook though. The main
cause of the slowdown is that I had this idea that we actually run
everything that we show, and never copy-paste sources and output. That was
proven to be tricky in many cases, and is still unsolved in some (like
where the example uses Linux shell features). I should just let that go for
now and push through with the conversion with copy-pasting where we still
have problems. On that note, I wonder if you want to rework the content
anyway, like we want to move most examples outside the documentation, and
then people can open them in IDE, modify them to play around, etc. If you
do such reworking, or any serious reworking really, that should be already
done in DocBook.

The warning about no backward compatibility needs to be apparent from
whatever documentation we release (the DocBook version has it). Backward
compatibility is really the main pain with the release. As we promise not
backward compatibility, we basically release software without promising
later support. People can still decide to use it (or they just don't
realize what this means). But, you may feel pressure to keep backward
compatibility instead of doing the right thing, which at this stage is
maybe not wise. (Also no support can be tricky when there's a security
issue with an old release. Although that's probably less relevant for a
tool like this.)

On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 1:02 PM Siegfried Goeschl <
siegfried.goes...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> There is still the Maven-based site which can be created using
>
> > mvn clean site site:stage
>
> I will look into the source release packages ...
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Siegfried Goeschl
>
>
> > On 24.10.2021, at 11:38, Daniel Dekany <daniel.dek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Still no site for example. Note sure about the others, had to review last
> > time's list.
> >
> > Can we build a source release package with all the necessary
> > NOTICE-s/LICENSE-s and signing? For this kind of project we will also
> want
> > a binary release package.
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 6:59 PM Siegfried Goeschl <
> > siegfried.goes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> What stops us from having the first release? Any blockers we are aware
> of?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >> Siegfried Goeschl
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Daniel Dekany
>
>

-- 
Best regards,
Daniel Dekany

Reply via email to