Thanks for the heads up. If I screw something up we can always regenerate from 
the release tag.

-Taylor

> On Aug 1, 2017, at 2:27 PM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Be careful when removing the javadocs.  There are links to the javadocs from 
> within the docs themselves.
> 
> 
> - Bobby
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017, 12:57:56 PM CDT, P. Taylor Goetz 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I cleaned up the download page to remove some of the older releases and added 
> a link to archive.a.o for older releases. I will also clean up dist as 
> requested by infra.
> 
> While I’m at it, I’ll clean up the javadoc so we only include javadoc for 
> releases on the download page.
> 
> That should help a little bit, but I agree that the publishing process is 
> painful and would welcome any improvements.
> 
> One option (I haven’t tested yet) might be to simply move the javadoc to the 
> “publish” directory so it doesn’t get regenerated every time the site gets 
> published. That would mean the javadoc links won’t work when running Jekyll 
> locally, but I think it’s a fair trade off.
> 
> -Taylor
> 
>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Rebuilding everything each time is sadly necessary as currently the 
>> header/footer for all of the content is inline in each page.  So if we add a 
>> new release every page changes.  To fix this we would have to change the 
>> header to dynamically include the HTML from another file that gets updated 
>> on it's own.
>> We might also want to think about rearranging things a bit, and reduce the 
>> number of releases that we have on the site.  Do we really need both 0.9.6 
>> and 0.9.7, or 0.10.0 through 0.10.2.  Maybe there is a way to archive some 
>> of these so they are a part of the final site, but are not generated each 
>> time? (probably would need the header change at a minimum to work)
>> 
>> 
>> - Bobby
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017, 6:01:03 AM CDT, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I found I forgot to build website with "-d publish/" parameter. Now it
>> reduced to 1347.585 secs but that is still way too long
>> 
>> I've done some tests on building website ('jekyll build -d publish/
>> --profile'):
>> 
>> 1. as it is : 1347.585 secs
>> 2. excluding 'releases' directories : 2.38 secs
>> 3. excluding 'releases' directories, and including '2.0.0-SNAPSHOT'
>> directory of releases : 45 secs
>> 
>> The build time is not stable but you can see how much the difference is. If
>> we can separate building doc for each release, that should be best and it
>> should reduce the build time greatly.
>> 
>> If we can't separate building doc, we may want to take alternative
>> approach: reducing maintaining releases. You can imagine that if we keep
>> adding docs for new releases in website repo it should increase overall
>> build time. I guess we may be better to provide only the last version of
>> version lines: 0.9.7, 0.10.2, 1.0.4, 1.1.0 (will be 1.1.1 soon),
>> 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT, total 5 releases. If we respect semantic versioning, major
>> changes shouldn't be introduced in bug-fix releases so don't need to
>> maintain docs separately.
>> 
>> I would like to gather opinions around this along with moving website to
>> git. Looking forward to hear others opinions.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> 
>> 2017년 8월 1일 (화) 오전 7:44, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>님이 작성:
>> 
>>> Also found that we don't expose 1.0.4 in documentation dropdown and 1.0.4
>>> directory is not created in 'publish/releases' directory. Maybe also missed
>>> that.
>>> 
>>> 2017년 8월 1일 (화) 오전 7:36, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>님이 작성:
>>> 
>>>> Hi devs,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm trying to modify release note on 1.0.4 one of user reported about
>>>> wrong CHANGELOG. And surprisingly, it took about 50 mins to serve the
>>>> website locally. Any hints to reduce the time? 50 mins for only building
>>>> the website is really annoying and anyone don't want to wait for that if we
>>>> modify "a" file.
>>>> 
>>>> And I found Storm 1.1.0 release note markdown file is missing. Taylor,
>>>> could you add it back to the SVN repo?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>> 

Reply via email to