Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
I'd say we remove that link until the site follows the documentation
standard.
I agree that its site is not that pretty but inspired by the recent
question
on user@ I wondered why we had no link at all although the plugin is
released. Isn't a poor site better than no site? I mean, the user gets at
least some basic infos about the existing plugin parameters without going
down to the sources.
It's a difficult question. But we have to start raising the bar for the
different plugins. We had some discussions about this back in
december-january in a thread titled "[proposal] house cleaning".
There seemed to be consensus that plugins should meet the documentation
standards before being able to get a production (as in non-alpha and
non-beta) release out there.
Besides, what about the other plugins whose site does not follow the
documentation standard, like jboss-maven-plugin or
idlj-maven-plugin to name just a few? Should we remove these ones, too?
Not sure... How do we handle the documentation deficit? I made a bunch
of plugin sites compliant last year, but there is still work to be done.
We should focus on the site of the plugins that has had a production
release.
Now I'll give the xslt-plugin's site a make-over instead of complaining...
What do you think?
Benjamin
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
