commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [all] Replace Commons Site m1 build with m2 version
Date Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:58:53 GMT
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2010-03-13 17:33, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On 2010-03-13 16:54, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-03-12 11:34, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:12 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/03/2010, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:07 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>  > On 12/03/2010, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>  >> I have created a m2 site for Commons[1][2] as
(hopefully) a
>>>>>>>>  >>  replacement for the m1 site[3] that we currently
have - you can see it
>>>>>>>>  >>  here:
>>>>>>>>  >>     http://people.apache.org/~niallp/commons/
>>>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>>>  >>  IMO its a PITA to have to switch to m1 to build
the commons site and
>>>>>>>>  >>  its time to move to m2.
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>  > +1, thanks for doing this.
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>  >>   * The new releases page[4] points to the download
pages on the
>>>>>>>>  >>  components' sites (removing the need for the
current XSLT ant task to
>>>>>>>>  >>  generate the downloads)
>>>>>>>>  >>   * I've put PMC members in the pom - so we have
a page showing them[5]
>>>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>>>  >>  Feel free to jump in and correct/improve anything.
>>>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>>>  >>  Opinions/feedback on switching from the old
m1 site to this m2 site
>>>>>>>>  >>  would be welcome. If anyone objects please shout
or I'll assume people
>>>>>>>>  >>  are OK with this.
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>  > There seem to be rather too many links marked as "external".
I don't
>>>>>>>>  > know if this is a side effect of creating a demo build
or whether this
>>>>>>>>  > would be seen in a live deployment - if so, then this
needs to be
>>>>>>>>  > fixed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK fixed alot of them - some of these links are now broken
on my
>>>>>>>>  *demo* site - but would be fine once deployed to the normal
location:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, I updated the parent pom.xml in trunk to get rid of the
<post>
>>>>>>> links for Commits and Issues. Just noticed that Announce is missing
>>>>>>> from the list ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Surefire report is not relevant - and is confusing - but
I could
>>>>>>> not work out how to get rid of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've changed the pom's parent from commons-parent to apache - this
>>>>>> means we don't inherit the reports specified (such as surefure) and
>>>>>> also the site.xml. Not inheriting site.xml from commons-parent gives
>>>>>> us more control over the main sites navigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> We could move all the reposting stuff in commons parent to a "reporting"
>>>>> profile. This is a common way to achieve two things:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Make the build faster if you don't want the reports
>>>>> - Prevent some children (like commons-site) from inheriting stuff unless
>>>>> you explicitly activate the profile
>>>>>
>>>>> The only drawback is that you need to supply the -Preporting parameter
>>>>> when you deploy the site, but this can easily be documented in our
>>>>> release instructions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can help with this if you think it's a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> I think the small amount of duplication (mailing list information) is
>>>> probably better. It also didn't work out that well inheriting the
>>>> site.xml from commons-proper. The old m1 site had expanding menus for
>>>> components/sandbox/dormant. We don't want to put that in the
>>>> commons-parent site.xml as it would mean we needed to release
>>>> commons-parent every time we wanted to do a menu change for a new
>>>> module - or moved module. Also there is less control over the main
>>>> site menu - because it needs to be geared towards being inherited by
>>>> components - this way we are freed up to have a slightly different
>>>> menu - no constrained by what modules require.
>>>
>>> I understand. We could create another POM project to handle this. Move
>>> the stuff that is only interesting for components to a
>>> commons-component-parent and let all our components inherit from that
>>> POM. What is left in commons-parent should work well for commons-site
>>> and other non-components that might occur.
>>>
>>> commons-parent (minus reporting and component-specific navigation)
>>> |
>>> +-- commons-site
>>> |
>>> +-- commons-component (reporting and component-specific navigation)
>>>    |
>>>    +-- commons-bar
>>>    |
>>>    +-- commons-foo
>>>    ...
>>>
>>
>> The disadvantage of this is that we now would have two parent poms
>> that we need to release but besides that I don't see how this is any
>> better than just having commons-site inherit directly from Apache
>> parent.
>
> With reporting and component-specific navigation removed from
> commons-parent, I see that POM having fewer releases going forward.

It would still mean an additional pom to release though.

> The benefit of this setup is that you get a clear separation between
> what is needed for Commons components and other Commons projects.

What other commons projects - besides the main site?

>> In fact since we never release commons-site - then not having
>> to depend on anything else we release seems like a big advantage to
>> me.
>
> Since commons-site is constantly evolving and deployed you don't
> necessarily need for it to have a non-SNAPSHOT parent when you deploy
> it. So the number of ancestors in the POM hierarchy should not matter.

True, but for commons-site it is very simple.

>> Also as I said before the duplication is very minimal and what is
>> there now in commons-site is very straight forward. So I don't see any
>> advantage in over-complicating this and the rest of our parent pom
>> structure.
>
> I don't see this as complicating things, on the contrary, it is meant to
> make things less complicated and more clear. Compare this to how you
> would use inheritance in Java.

Its an extra pom just to remove the duplication of mailing list info.
One less layer in our pom hierarchy for components is a good thing
IMO. Having two commons pom ancestors for components is going in the
wrong direction IMO and for virtually no benefit.

Niall

>>
>> Niall
>>
>>>>
>>>> Niall
>>>>
>>>>>> Niall
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  http://people.apache.org/~niallp/commons/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=922120
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  >>  Niall
>>>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>>>  >>  [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=922094
>>>>>>>>  >>  [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/commons-site/
>>>>>>>>  >>  [3] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/commons-build/trunk/
>>>>>>>>  >>  [4] http://people.apache.org/~niallp/commons/downloads/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still shows external links for me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  >>  [5] http://people.apache.org/~niallp/commons/team-list.html
>>>>>>>>  >>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dennis Lundberg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message