Looks good to me! I think the links in the top right are out of date
though.
On 14/08/2008, at 6:43 AM, Vincent Siveton wrote:
Hi Folks,
Working with Olivier to improve the SCM website, we propose the
following:
http://people.apache.org/~vsiveton/maven-scm/people.apache.org/www/maven.apac
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whatever we do, we need to be consistent. We don't currently version our
> sites, but I know Archiva does. We should discuss this on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> before we change any previous pattern.
The plugins are maven-whatev
Hi Folks,
Working with Olivier to improve the SCM website, we propose the following:
http://people.apache.org/~vsiveton/maven-scm/people.apache.org/www/maven.apache.org/scm/
(some links could be broken)
It used src/site in all projects and we need to remove the
maven-scm-site project.
WDYT?
Che
Oh, sorry I confused this with the staging URL. The plugins parent has
this configuration:
maven-site-plugin
scp://people.apache.org/www/maven.apache.org/plugins/${project.artifactId}-${project.version}
So it's not the same POM element, but I thi
Hi,
Whats about :
/www/maven.apache.org/scm-versions/1.0 ( or maven-scm-1.0)
/www/maven.apache.org/scm-versions/1.1
and a link (or a redirect) in root to the last version.
?
--
Olivier
2008/8/13 Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There's a problem doing that as well, and that is that you ar
There's a problem doing that as well, and that is that you are mixing
content from several different site deploys into a single directory scm/
Brett Porter wrote:
> Would scm/$VERSION be better, to reduce the number of directories in the
> root / ?
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On 13/08/2008, at 12:33
Hi Brett,
2008/8/12 Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Will they still be included in source distribution as well as the JARs?
As usually in the /META-INF but not in the root of JARs. See [1] for instance.
>
> I don't think there's any harm in having the license in the source
> repository as we
