Coolio :-)
--jason
On Oct 22, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
OK, I just created the page and did an export ... it might take an
hour or so for it to become live.
Joe
Jason Dillon wrote:
I don't think it implies that really... just only shows what
javadocs we do have, though we shoul
OK, I just created the page and did an export ... it might take an hour
or so for it to become live.
Joe
Jason Dillon wrote:
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
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 al
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 t
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 exp
I'm not really sure why the javadoc is checked into svn. I was just
following the same process used for 2.0.1. I suppose there is nothing
to prevent us from directly copying the content somewhere under
/www/geronimo.apache.org as we do for the maven generated sites. That
certainly sounds mor
Thanks Joe!
I'm not sure why the javadoc is checked in into svn in the first
place. Seems to me like that's unnecessary since we should always be
able to regenerate the javadoc from source. So, I'm ok with removing
any javadoc from svn but we should keep the javadoc for any major
Geronimo version
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
From what I can tell, it looks like the samples/branch/2.1 site
builds fine. I tested deploying to a local file: URL and all of the
links I tried worked fine.
--jason
On Sep 25, 2008, at 10:04 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Joe Bohn wrote:
Jason Dillon wrote:
On Sep 22, 2008, at 11:57 PM, Joe Bo
Joe Bohn wrote:
Jason Dillon wrote:
On Sep 22, 2008, at 11:57 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Yep, that's pretty ancient. So it looks like we haven't released
javadoc for Geronimo since the referenced link to 2.0.1.
Does anybody know if the plan was to start using a maven generated
site to produce pro
Jason Dillon wrote:
On Sep 22, 2008, at 11:57 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Yep, that's pretty ancient. So it looks like we haven't released
javadoc for Geronimo since the referenced link to 2.0.1.
Does anybody know if the plan was to start using a maven generated
site to produce provide this and we j
On Sep 22, 2008, at 11:57 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Yep, that's pretty ancient. So it looks like we haven't released
javadoc for Geronimo since the referenced link to 2.0.1.
Does anybody know if the plan was to start using a maven generated
site to produce provide this and we just haven't impleme
Yep, that's pretty ancient. So it looks like we haven't released
javadoc for Geronimo since the referenced link to 2.0.1.
Does anybody know if the plan was to start using a maven generated site
to produce provide this and we just haven't implemented it yet?
There is a maven site out there fo
>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
14 matches
Mail list logo
