On 12 November 2013 05:17, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 4:24 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7 November 2013 17:45, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 11/6/13 10:11 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi All: >> >>> >> >>> I find it unhelpful and confusing at times to see Commons sites for >> >>> -SNAPSHOT version. >> >>> >> >>> I'd prefer to be able to browse a whole site for any released version. >> This >> >>> is especially handy when I want to find information for some older >> version >> >>> I must work with through an inherited dependency. >> >>> >> >> The tail is wagging the dog (ie: Maven is leading us astray). >> >> This is nothing to do with Maven per se. >> It's just a question of what source is used to build the website. >> >> > There's the tail wagging us. Why is source (of the component) used to build > the website?
I meant: which version of the source xdocs are used to build the site. It does not have to be trunk; it could be the tag or a branch (which is what we do for JMeter). > >> >> >> >> The notion of a website having a version is absurd :) [other than its >> own >> >> svn/git versioning] >> >> > +1 - I tend to agree with the site == head approach that we have >> > pretty much always taken. I like the Tomcat approach of making >> > versioned site content available for past releases, but that is a >> > pain to maintain and I am loathe to ask more from Commons RMs atm or >> > to clutter svn with ever more little maven-generated files. For >> > most Commons components, there is not much beyond the javadoc >> > anyway, which in most cases is already published for old releases. >> >> Forget about Commons for a moment. >> >> Consider Maven Plugin websites. >> >> Would they be useful if they only showed the documentation for the >> unreleased head version of the plugin? >> >> No, of course not; it's essential the the user can readily find >> documentation for the current release. >> It would be nice if docs were also available for selected earlier >> releases as well, but that is a separate issue. > > > If we assume that users cannot manage documentation on their own, which I > think is fair, then it's essential the user can readily find the > documentation for the release they are using. +1 > I think every component's site should be akin to (assume lots of > cross-referenced linking): > > index.html -> Boilerplate blurb. Latest release info. > releases.html -> Info about every release. > docs/** -> Docs for each release. ie) Javadoc + User Guide; though if we > wanted to also bundle quality docs we could (but I think it's pointless). > download/** -> Download each release [obviously would be mirror structure > etc] That looks fine to me. > None of those have anything to do with versions of source. Huh? At the very least the docs for each release should relate to the source version for the release. > Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
