On 19 November 2011 19:17, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> wrote: > On 11/19/2011 07:58 PM, sebb wrote: >> >> On 19 November 2011 13:19, Mladen Turk<mt...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 11/19/2011 01:33 PM, sebb wrote: >>>> >>>> On 18 November 2011 14:14, Mladen Truk<mt...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The proposed Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.8 release >>>>> is now available for voting. >>>>> >>>>> It can be obtained from: >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~mturk/daemon-1.0.8/ >>>> >>>> The README.html files refer to RELEASE-NOTES.txt which are not present. >>>> I assume that will be fixed on the mirrors? >>>> >>> >>> Yep. RELEASE-NOTES will probably have date of the 1.0.8 release. >>> This cannot be known in advance cause we are still voting. >>> >>>> >>>> The src/site and src/media directory trees are missing from the source >>>> archives. >>>> >>>> I think this is a blocker. >>> >>> Site in the source. Site is for apache.org web site. What would it have >>> to >>> do >>> with the source or binary distribution. >>> It was never part of the dist (and I don't know of any projects that >>> ships >>> site together with release) >> >> AFAIK, all the other Commons components ship the site source files >> (not the generated site) with the source archives. >> > > This is probably because the src/** was used for producing the > source artifact. IMO all those releases should be -1 until site > is removed from them. > At least I plan to -1 any release until this is solved Commons wide! > > Site sources have one and one only purpose: > To be used as a source for generating web pages that will appear > on the ASF web site.
That's not strictly true, they also include documentation that is not otherwise present in the archives. > The have absolutely no business in the source artifacts we ship > to our users. IMO they do, because they are needed for the documentation. There's some stuff under site that is purely useful for the website, but in general the docs relate to the code. > But like you already observed. We need a separate descent > web site repo. Current one is both ugly, unreadable and unmaintainable. *I* never said that about Commons. I like the way the Commons web-site is set up. The only awkard bits are maintaining multiple versions of Javadocs etc, and some aspects of Maven site generation, which has nothing to do with requiring a separate web-site repo. I like the fact that the site docs are under the code trunk; it's easy to ensure that the documentation is updated when the code is updated. That can be trickier if there is a separate repo to maintain. > > Regards > -- > ^TM > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
