On 22/02/2008, Erik Abele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 21.02.2008, at 21:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Hi Erik, > > > > from your other mail: > >> Wouldn't it work to simply build the sites as > >> usual (mvn site:site), then check in the target > >> directories and pull those onto people.apache.org? > > > > It might work, until you have to run "mvn clean" > > to make sure that all pages are regenerated. That > > will delete your .svn subdirectories in target/. > > > Arggh, didn't think about that one... :) Hmppf... >
Maybe the clean target can be tweaked to just remove the content, rather than the entire directory tree? That's what I did for JMeter, though of course that uses Ant - which does not sweep everything under the magic carpet ;-) > >>> I'd rather remove the module-level site than try to maintain > >>> the generated information in SVN. > >> > >> Yep, I understand - we could also simply svn:ignore those in the > >> target dirs and mvn-deploy them only when necessary. > > > > That is my idea, except for using a staging > > directory instead of the target directories. > > > Ok. > > > >> Did I mention how crappy Maven feels for website-related stuff? Maybe > >> we should switch this crap to Forrest, Anakia or something comletely > >> different... what are other projects doing? > > > > Yes you did. But Oleg raised the point of the .apt > > format, which is much easier to edit than xdocs > > for the simple pages. Doxia can be called through a > > Java API, but I couldn't find an Ant task and don't > > have time to waste on writing one. My suggestion to > > adapt the Jakarta site building is somewhere in the > > mail archives, but we went with Maven because I had > > no alternative to offer for .apt. > > > I agree, apt is nice but Maven... oh well, let's leave it at that and > make the best of it. > > > >>> You mentioned the possibility of running nightly builds directly > >>> on people.apache.org. Could and should we use that to generate > >>> the module-level subsites on a weekly or even daily basis there? > >>> Then we don't have to deploy those at all. > >> > >> Hmm, that would be another possibility but I'm a bit concerned with > >> failing builds etc... > > > > Just for the reports. If report generation fails, > > the results are not copied to the site and the > > old stuff remains available. For now, we can of > > course manually deploy the four module sites we > > currently have. But reports like the test coverage > > make little sense unless they are updated on a > > regular basis. There are also other Maven reports, > > such as SVN activity, that become interesting if > > generated on a regular basis. Just a thought :-) > > > Aye, makes sense then. > > Cheers, > > Erik > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
