Mailing-List: contact torque-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Torque Developers List" <torque-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Planning
To: torque-dev@db.apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <OFA85208E4.62E38F51-ONC1257A85.0024434C-C1257A8C.0007717F@seitenbau.net>
From: Thomas Fox <Thomas.Fox@seitenbau.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 03:21:17 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII


As we're now past the 4.0-beta1 release, it's worth while to put a few
thoughts into what comes next. There have been a few discussion issues open
from the 4.0-beta1 release, as well as a general requirement from apache
infrastructure.

1) It is still undecided whether we want to include documentation with the
binary releases. Currently they only contain the jar and their
dependencies.
2) It is also undecided whether we want to provide source packages for the
single modules.
3) We need to switch the site publishing mechanism to svnpubsub until the
end of year [1]. So some change in the site publishing mechanism is needed.
We need to consider the following:
  - We need a location for the site in svn (currently the "default
location" db/torque/site is occupied by the torque 3 site project, see also
(5))
  - We probably want to retain the documentation for older releases
  - It should be no hassle to create a new site version directory (as we
now have for the old docs of 3.1, 3.2, and the new 4.0 but not the current
3.3 docs)
4) How much time do we allow for testing before the first attempt to
release 4.0 ?
5) Do we want to reorganize svn by putting the torque 3 resources into
aseparate place ?
6) I'd like to improve the online docs further by dropping the strict
separation between modules in the docs.

My personal opinions are:
1) We should create a README file for the binary distributions, pointing to
the online documentation. As the modules are too much connected, creating
documentation for a single module is very much hassle (and cannot be taken
from the online docs). Including docs for all the modules will probably
confuse an innocent user.
2) I do not see the necessity to have a source distribution for single
modules. We already have a source distribution for all modules. Having
single source distributions has the problem that the module builds depend
on each other.
3) We can use db/torque/site-svnpubsub as svn location. There, a directory
should exist for every documentation version we want to retain (even the
newest version), e.g db/torque/site-svnpubsub/torque-4.0. There should be a
single index.html file in the db/torque/site-svnpubsub location, which
redirects to the current version.
4) I'd suggest two months. So try starting to release 4.0 end of November.
5) Reorganizing would break existing svn locations. But as long as we edit
the site accordinglis, this should not be a problem. I suggest to create a
torque3 directory along the torque4 directory (db/torque/torque3) and move
the torque 3 stuff in there.
6) In my opinion, the user sees Torque as a single toolkit. Why should he
bother to first think into which module he must look into for
documentation? While at this, I'd also like to move the docs to a more
prominent place than Module Documentation/Modules/${module}/Reference in
the current site menu structure

Any opinions / suggestions / vetos ?

     Thomas

[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/project-site.html#svnpubsub


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