On 4 February 2018 at 11:49, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2018-02-03 at 23:02 +0000, sebb wrote: >> On 3 February 2018 at 10:32, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> > > ... > >> >> > Like, better tools tend to use markdown. >> >> But Maven is not a content generation tool; > > Why are we using it as a content generation tool I am wondering?
We are not; we are using editors etc. Maven is used to generate the presentation of the content as a website or a PDF or whatever. >> Preference for markdown and its tooling >> Content presentation. >> Site generation. >> >> Only the latter is really down to Maven and you have yet to explain >> what it is about the site generation that is so terrible. >> > > Had you been taking any interest in actually contributing code or > project web site content you might have known. AFAICR I have done both, but not recently. > Maven generates broken links agreed, but AFAIR it can be fixed in Maven (commons did) > inconsistent line delimiters that Svn chokes on Not noticed that. But is it Maven or one of the tools (e.g. Javadoc) that creates them? > and cannot generate sites consisting of multiple versions of > the same artifact. AIUI the multiple sites issue is more about svnpubsub, though > I have spent years trying to get it to work (it is > not a figure of speech) and ended up writing a bunch of gradle scripts > that stitch together content from multiple maven project, post-process > the content to fix the links and line delimiters. Are you sure migration won't involve lots of ongoing work, and then you discover that the new build system has other features that have to be worked round? > No, Sebastian, all is peachy and Maven site plugin is just fine as long > as you do not have to touch it. Well, it is working now, is it not? == There are several independent but related issues here: - the content information format - the site look and feel - how it is generated. I think it is important to be clear about the reasons for any change. So if some existing features are lost, that can be justified in terms of the benefits. The site URLs and links should be considered as part of the 'API' of the documentation. We should not break them unnecessarily. Note: I am not arguing that we have to keep Maven to build the site. I *am* saying we need to preserve links. Moving from Maven may make this harder, so that needs to be factored in to the decision. > Oleg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org
