commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Colebourne <>
Subject Re: [lang] 2.1 rc (practice)
Date Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:08:48 GMT
I am not sure if we've laid out how we are going to
build the release versions of [lang], but here is my

For other projects I do, I build the jar file, source
and binary dists using ant. I do this using an old JDK
(1.3, although perhaps it should even be 1.2). I also
use this same jar file to upload to ibiblio. I do NOT
use maven - it uses the wrong JDK and I don't trust it

I DO use maven for building the website, which I do
with JDK 1.4/1.5. After doing maven site, I copy the
javadoc to a new directory api-2.1. Only then do I do
maven site:sshdeploy.

On the server, I manually link api-release to api-2.1.
The navigation.xml file contains hyperlinks to
api-release to refer to the release docs, and apidocs
to refer to the latest CVS javadoc (which will be the
same just after a release).

Thus the server contains:

 - apidocs - CVS latest javadoc
 - api-2.0 - javadoc of 2.0 (copy on server before
 - api-2.1 - javadoc of 2.1 (upload with maven in
 - api-release - link to api-2.1

And ALL jar files are produced by ant under JDK1.3 (or


 --- Henri Yandell <> wrote: 
> > 3) the binary dist is fat. The 2.0 binary tarball
> was under 500k and the
> > 2.1 candidate is over 2MB.  This is all due to the
> site stuff.  Might be
> > better to turn off some / most of the maven
> project reports (esp. the
> > xref reports) and drop some of the maven image /
> logo cruft.  For the
> > latter, have a look at the maven.xml for
> directory-naming.  Could be
> > this (ability to prevent unused images/logos from
> being copied out) is
> > now available in the latest maven xdoc plugin.
> Nasty. 
> I'm -0 to the whole placing of the site in the
> dists. Seems like a
> waste of bandwidth.
> Documentation should be in there, but a site !=
> documentation (maven's
> fault, though other non-maven places do exactly the
> same thing) and
> much of the documentation is hardly pertinent
> (source xref's?). I can
> see some argument for it being in th src dists, but
> we don't even have
> it there. Is there anything other than javadoc that
> should be there?
> The userguide is the only thing that jumps to mind,
> but it's
> incomplete.
> Only -0 because I'll never have to download the
> dists. I'll be using
> the ibiblio .jar file and the online javadoc (until
> they get
> overwritten by the latest from HEAD, which is a well
> known grumble for
> another time).

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message