I don't think it implies that really... just only shows what javadocs we do have, though we should probably keep one copy (latest) for each major release.

--jason


On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I just hadn't gotten to it yet and I was also a little hesitant because that implies that we will have the javadoc for all releases. At the moment we only have 2.0.1 and 2.1.3.

Joe


Jason Dillon wrote:
I suggest we create an intermediate page in the wiki to list the javadoc versions, and link to that from the sidenav instead of going directly to 2.1.3.
--jason
On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
I built and checked in the server 2.1.3 javadocs. This seemed to be the most expedient thing to do but there are some concerns:

#1 This is a huge amount of content to include in svn. I think infra will not be happy with us. #2 Given #1, I debated deleting the 2.0.1 javadoc. However, this won't save anything given that svn must keep the history. It will save anyone from getting all of the 2.0.1 content if they check out the site trunk. What do you think, should we delete or keep 2.0.1 javadoc? #3 Also given #1, it's probably a good thing that we haven't done this for each release. Perhaps we should just do this once for each major version? Thoughts? #4 We had discussed using the maven generated site rather than distributing this javadoc. However that also presents some problems:
- Currently it doesn't build for tags/2.1.3 (at least not for me).
- When it does build, the javadoc is per module/project. So rather than a complete view of javadoc as with that just checked in you must first navigate to the module of interest and then you can view the javadoc for that module. This doesn't seem as useful to me.

I'm not sure if I want to take the time to investigate the mvn site issues right now .... anybody else interested?

Joe



Ted Kirby wrote:
From the home page, if I choose Javadoc as the first choice under the
Development section of the left nav bar, I get 2.0.1 Javadoc.  This
should be updated to 2.1.3.
Ted Kirby



Reply via email to