Gotcha - thanks!
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Kalle Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > Right, we had already agreed to create the symlinks. Fully agree we > shouldn't direct people to the Maven site but just link to selected > content from there. The current Maven site infrastructure doesn't play > well with other site technologies such as wikis so you see various > solutions to the problem when people are trying to cope with it. The > Maven site infrastructure is targeted for a rewrite in 3.x. > > Kalle > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >> I would (hopefully) change it a bit the next time around. Ant changed >> his vote to +1, so we're still on for a release - I'd hate to have to >> start over again if not absolutely mandatory. >> >> As to the static site, I think generating it is still ok, but maybe we >> just have symlinks to the reports that people care about. We did this >> on the old JSecurity website, and it worked really well. That is: >> >> /www/incubator.apache.org/shiro/api (symlink) --> >> /www/incubator.apache.org/shiro/static/1.0.0-incubating/apidocs/ >> >> Then our website navigation only points to the symlinks. That way, >> the static site never needs to be referenced anywhere - it is used >> only as a report generation and hosting 'implementation detail'. >> >> This does require the extra work of maintaining a download page like >> we did previously (http://www.jsecurity.org/download), but I think it >> is well worth it - it is extremely easy for people to get the >> information they care about, and the static site doesn't have to be >> referenced again. >> >> I just haven't set this up yet because we don't have an official >> release yet. Once that is (hopefully) approved, I wanted to add these >> links. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Les >> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Kalle Korhonen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Web site documentation evolves. It should be decoupled, vote-wise, from >>>> our >>>> release process of artifacts. >>> >>> Fundamentally, I don't care too much about it either way, but the >>> point is that specifically the site artifacts (and it's less about >>> documentation than the reports - dependencies, quality etc.) do not >>> evolve since the reports are relevant for that specific revision of >>> code only. Les asked me to configure the pom so that the the site can >>> be archived so I did. The site can be seen as supporting documentation >>> for the release and it may be easier to view the produced web pages >>> rather than browse the raw pom file, especially for people not >>> familiar with Maven. Since the site's not supposed to evolve and any >>> desired change in the site would require changes in the pom and the >>> tag, at least the given meta-data for that release should be correct >>> and reviewed and thus subject to a vote, don't you think? Your >>> statement that it should be decoupled contradicts with the process >>> that Maven (the project) has put forth so I assume your statement is >>> your opinion rather than Apache's official position on it. Is that >>> correct? Finally, do you think we should vote on 1.0.0 again, >>> excluding the site or just perhaps word the release vote email >>> differently the next time around? >>> >>> Kalle >>> >>> >>>> On May 26, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Kalle Korhonen wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it was a mistake to generate it and include it in the release >>>>>> vote. >>>>>> People will focus on this non-release artifact. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps. But considering that the site will be versioned and archived, >>>>> it's a secondary artifact of the release and deploying the site is >>>>> according to the Apache/Maven release best practices. I don't mind if >>>>> we need to make minor adjustments to the content to make everybody >>>>> happy; I'd rather pay now than later. If nobody votes against, we can >>>>> just gather the notes and fix the remaining issues in the next >>>>> release. >>>>> >>>>> Kalle >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 26, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Kalle Korhonen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Additionally, the static sites will be versioned and archived unlike >>>>>>> the wiki, where there's in principle just one version of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kalle >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah, its mainly just for the auto-generated reports - much easier to >>>>>>>> let Maven generate and upload the site automagically than us having to >>>>>>>> piecemeal it and do each one individually. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Kalle Korhonen >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Alan D. Cabrera >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why do we generate a static maven site if we have a perfectly good >>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>> driven by the wiki? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For javadocs, info & quality reports and since it's simple. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kalle >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
