Hi Glen, the first file is generated from the second one via org.apache.wiki.site.SiteGeneratorTest [cfr. JSPWIKI-764]. The idea behind that was to give more visibility to external contributions. The test only tidies up a little the ChangeLog file (does some clean up to nest lists properly and links to the relevant JIRA issue when appropiate). My idea was, on a second step:
- get INFRA-5943 done (linked in JSPWIKI-764) - get a proper maven layout - move the site as a build submodule - clean install should then update the (site's) ChangeLog In the end, a commit should update the site's ChangeLog page automatically. In the meantime, we've to manually execute the test & commit the appropiate files. There're some pointers at http://incubator.apache.org/jspwiki/development/edit_website.html but I don't know if they're enough.. Another approach we could take is to directly edit the site's ChangeLog file, dismissing the original one. I took the test approach because, on the same run, the translation status page and the latest version on trunk are also generated, and it seemed easier to me. However, if we decide to mantain the ChangeLog file in another way I'm open to it WDYT? cheers, juan pablo On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Glen Mazza <[email protected]> wrote: > I noticed we're presently maintaining two changelog files (two more than > the vast majority of other Apache projects ;-) with the same info in both: > > (1) http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**incubator/jspwiki/site/trunk/** > content/jspwiki/development/**changelog.mdtext?view=markup<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/jspwiki/site/trunk/content/jspwiki/development/changelog.mdtext?view=markup> > > (2) http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**incubator/jspwiki/trunk/** > ChangeLog?view=markup<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/jspwiki/trunk/ChangeLog?view=markup> > > Why don't we just have the website hyperlink to (2) (or > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**incubator/jspwiki/trunk/**ChangeLog?view=co<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/jspwiki/trunk/ChangeLog?view=co>) > and we're done? People do open source for technical development, to keep > their skills sharp. Most have enough secretarial headaches in their day > jobs without needing more on their volunteer jobs, and the more busywork we > insist upon the more they will go to other projects. > > Glen > >
