Don't forget to document all this in the wiki. Just my 2 cents. :)
Regards, Alan On May 19, 2010, at 11:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sounds good to me. I already created a /static/assets/ directory to >> include things like css, images, javascript - fairly standard kind of >> separation for websites I think (i.e. /static/assets/css, >> /static/assets/images, /static/assets/js, etc) - just to get the site >> template to work. I'm good to change that /static/css etc, but we'd >> have to modify the auto export template to reflect that. I think that >> can be a 'when we get around to it' task, no? > > /static/assets is fine - they are not directly visible to the user so > it's not that critical. I've started favoring /assets/style/ (or even > something like /assets/themes/rainbow) and just dumping css and images > all in the same location to make it easy to refer to the images > directly from the css but really, what you have now works fine. > > Kalle > > >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Kalle Korhonen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> I'm thinking we should have a top-level /static directory under which >>>> all static content resides, including the Maven generated site. >>>> Currently the maven generated site is located at /site which is a >>>> little odd, since we already have a 'site'. Can we move it to >>>> /static/mvnsite to parallel other static images? Thoughts? >>> >>> /static ok, do we really need /mvnsite added? What if it's just: >>> - /static/latest for latest Maven snapshot >>> - /static/{project.version} for archived Maven releases >>> - /static/css >>> - /static/images >>> >>> I'd try to keep the visible urls as short as possible for user's >>> convenience. It's not absolutely necessary to even deploy the Maven >>> site under /static, could be directly under our webroot. >>> >>> Kalle >>> >>
