On 1/4/14, 12:29 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: > To Sebb and Bendikt: > > I'm ambivalent on whether the reports are release version or snapshot, I > can see value in both (one encourages users, the other contributors). > However the site _has_ to be trunk. Having to do a new release just so we > can update the site doesn't strike me as healthy.
+1 My NSHO here is that there is nothing wrong with the time-honored tradition here that a) the web site reflects *current development* - the reports, javadoc, text, examples, guides, whatever b) prior version javadocs are available linked on the web site As such, the web site should be updated / republished often. Ugliness in reports can encourage people to jump in and help out. Ugliness / incompleteness / obsolescence / mismatches with code in examples / text can encourage people to help out with documentation. As Hen keeps saying, the web site is never "released" and there should be no tight coupling between the web site and a specific release. (As a side note, when we began our decade-long love affair with maven site generation, we started the practice of including a link to the maven-generated site in release votes. The initial intent of this was just to validate that "maven site" actually worked - i.e., you could build a site locally from the source distro. That is all it has ever meant in my HO - we have never voted to "release" site content - just the source files that generate it.) The only loss here is users wanting definitive docs for the release versions they are using have only the javadocs immediately available on the web site. For most of our components, frankly you ain't getting much more than that. For the ones that have user guides / examples, I am more sympathetic to the view that these should be versioned / checked in like the javadocs. One day I may get motivated to set this up for the [math] user guide. Phil > > To Gary: > > It has two versions (source version and the generated version checked in), > but there's no reason either should be shown so prominently, if at all. > > Hen > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> But the site is versioned, in SVN and as a reflection of the SVN/release >> of the code base. >> >> G >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> >> Date:01/03/2014 08:12 (GMT-05:00) >> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: [LANG] Snap-shot version in website header >> >> 2014/1/3 Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> >> >>> Yes we change the site between releases. >>> >>> The bigger question is why we have a version number on the website, it >>> isn't versioned. >>> >> Well at least the repots have kind of a version, because they reflect the >> state of the code they were build against. >> And to me the reports for the latest release are far more important then >> those for the current trunk. >> >> >>> Hen >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Duncan Jones <dun...@wortharead.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> The top of the commons-lang web page reads: >>>> >>>> "Last Published: 01 January 2014 | Version: 3.3-SNAPSHOT " >>>> >>>> Shouldn't that read: >>>> >>>> "Last Published: 01 January 2014 | Version: 3.2 " ?? >>>> >>>> Or are we changing the site between releases, thus necessitating that >>>> we build a site using the current (snapshot) version number? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Duncan >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- >> http://people.apache.org/~britter/ >> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ >> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter >> http://github.com/britter >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
