Hi Daniel, Don't be so harsh ;-)
* No plans to maintain the Maven site after the initial release * This is open source and therefore best effort * Guess supporting Java 8 date / time is much more important for the community Thanks in advance, Siegfried Goeschl > On 24.10.2021, at 23:38, Daniel Dekany <daniel.dek...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I did not mean that any of them are blocking. > > Keeping two documentation up to date is a growing pain. It's my weakness > though that it's still not done. Yet, if you plan to do a bigger reworking, > it's better done on the DocBook version. > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 6:58 PM Siegfried Goeschl < > siegfried.goes...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> Both topics are non-blocking in my opinion >> >> Regarding documentation: >> >> A complete Maven website including Markdown content is generated. And >> documentation will be updated, extended and moved to Docbook but that can >> be done any time - no need to introduce additional dependencies >> >> Regarding backward compatibility: >> >> * The code is mostly written by one person and that's me - so it is not a >> mature code base >> * There are hardly any users out there and new user will detect bugs, >> suggest improvements or will tell you that some parts are simply broken by >> design - enforcing backward compatibility will do some harm here >> * I consider backward compatibility important assuming that you HAVE many >> users out there >> * It is a command-line tools mostly used by developers and they know what >> a 0.x release means - some things are in motion and need time to settle >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Siegfried Goeschl >> >> >> >>> On 24.10.2021, at 15:16, Daniel Dekany <daniel.dek...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >> >> > > -- > Best regards, > Daniel Dekany
