Another nice aspect to having site generation is the reports (PMD, FindBugs, JIRA, Checkstyle, and so on.)
Gary On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:07 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
