See below > On Apr 18, 2021, at 3:21 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 18:40, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com > <mailto:gillese...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Le dim. 18 avr. 2021 à 15:38, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 13:40, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Note that git also has its gitlink and sub modules features that we could >>>> use here. >>> >>> Are they easy to use? >>> Who is going to design and test the replacement? >>> Will such a design really be easier to use? >>> There's no point changing the publication strategy if it is not an >>> improvement. >> >> Quoting Ralph Goers: >> ---CUT--- >> When I release Log4j I rum mvn site followed by "mvn site:stage >> -DstagingDirectory=$HOME/log4j” on my laptop. I validate the site >> locally and then zip the site, cd to my logging-log4j-site project and >> unzip it where I want it to go. >> ---CUT--- >> >> Is that the "publication strategy" which you think is not worth >> changing to? >> >> That's not more complicated than what I do now (mentioned in the >> other thread). > > AFAIK the steps you mention in the other thread can be replaced by: > > $ mvn clean site-deploy # for single module components > OR > $ mvn clean site site:stage scm-publish:publish-scm # multi module > > I'm not sure that the proposed method is no more complicated than the > present arrangements. > > The proposal would be two local workspaces to maintain, and two repos > for each component. > > There's also the issue that most of the poms would likely need > changing, and the change would not be as simple as changing a URL.
If you use "mvn site:stage -DstagingDirectory=wherever/my/local/site/is” then you don’t need to change the poms. > > As well as setting up all the extra Git branches and/or repos. > > I don't know if a website can be served from a combination of SVN and > Git sources, so the top-level website would need to be converted to > Git, and something done about the dormant and sandbox sites - probably > would need at least one more Git repo to hold them. Why wouldn’t the dormant and sandbox sites just be part of the main web site? > > The only advantage I can see is that there could be a public staging > repo for each site. > > Is that worth all the extra setup? > > And who is doing the work? Well, someone will have to volunteer. Ralph
