Donald Woods wrote:
In-line.
Joe Bohn wrote:
I've been making some changes to Genesis 1.5-SNAPSHOT to get maven
site generation working a little bit better and fix a few other
things. All of this is because there were still some maven site
generation issues after releasing samples. I think I have things
working better now ... but I have some questions:
- Regarding the site.xml ... it looked to me like the original intent
was to leverage completely the site.xml from genesis. However, I
could never get this working correctly to include the header for the
generated site. As a result ... I ended up including some of the same
site.xml content in samples such as the skin and banner definition. Is
that a problem?
- Genesis: When we were getting samples out the door I ended up
including some temporary junk in the sample pom/site. I've now
removed this and made some minor changes to
genesis/branches/genesis-1.x. Should I look at releasing Genesis 1.5
until 2.0 is complete or should we put all emphasis on 2.0? What is
the current status of 2.0? BTW .. I also noticed that generating a
site for genesis 2.0-SNAPSHOT itself has some issues .... something
else to look into.
Yes, we should release 1.5, so future maintenance releases of existing
2.0/2.1 server, samples and specs can use it (there will be a 2.1.4
Server release, just a mater of when...)
I was leaning that way too. In my very poorly worded sentence below I
intended to say "I can create a Genesis 1.5 rc and get that up for a
vote". I'll go ahead and do that now. If there are any objections to
that we can deal with in the vote/discussion.
- Specs: I've also made some similar changes locally for specs. I
think these will produce more correct maven sites. However, the would
require changes to depend on a newer Genesis and would require
releasing a new specs-parent (1.6). I don't want to include these
snapshot dependencies which would hinder the ability to release specs
for now ... so I'm waiting on the Genesis decision. If we want to
push out a Genesis 1.5 rc and get that up for vote.
General: Is this really worth the effort? It seems that we haven't
put much of an emphasis on maven sites. Is this because there were
problems generating them or because we don't see much value? Most of
what we have out there now is 2 years old (see
http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/maven-generated-documentation.html).
It think there are some concerns of how useful these are, particularly
for multi-project release (like server). The site information
generated is per project and doesn't provide a good overview. IIUC,
this can be aggregated for some if not all things (like javadoc). In
the past we have provided independent javadoc in addition to the site
(which I suspect is why, I suspect that the latest javadoc available
for the server from our site if for 2.0.1). Should we focus energy on
getting independent javadoc release, improve maven site generation and
leverage that for javadoc/xrefs, or both?
Some users have asked for updated javadoc, so lets give it one more try
before we abandon site generation.
FYI, I'm also looking into what we need to do to update the javadoc on
the website (independent of the maven site). I'd love to eliminate one
of these but in the until we can get a server site generated I think it
makes sense to release some freah javadoc for 2.1.3.
Joe
