geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hernan Cunico <>
Subject Re: web site update
Date Thu, 03 May 2007 02:34:08 GMT
Jason Dillon wrote:
> Also, why are the release notes using closer.cgi?  Its a PITA when you 
> want to go look at these small text files to see what they have to use 
> this mirror redirector, which is intended for larger downloads :-(

The way we download the files is the same way we have been using since the very beginning,
long before the first face lift. Not sure why you bring this up just now !?

> --jason
> On May 2, 2007, at 2:49 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>> I see so you just left one box logo on the downloads page then?  Not 
>> the direction I would have hopped... and its still got that ugly 
>> border... :-(

I didn't attach any new images, however I did fix the border problem earlier today.

It was you who added the 1.1 image in first place on the download page (Mar 26, 2007 14:52
- Jason Dillon: Add the nice box, using svn url at the moment, should change). I then changed
it with a smaller jpg version for faster rendering.

Either way, that image refers to 1.1, that's why I asked for one without any version specific
info so we can add it to the "general" download page. FWIW we are also missing 1.0 and 1.1.1
boxes so we can add to each download page the corresponding image.

WRT I mentioned
in the other thread you replied:

This is the same box logo which I'm talking about.

I thought I had explained this already...

I give up.  You do it how you want and if you end up copying the image over and over I'll
try to explain again later why duplicating is bad.

*geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg* is not the same image as *geronimo-box-1.2-small.jpg* which is
not the same image as *geronimo-box-2.0-small.jpg* ..., so what is it I am duplicating?


>> --jason
>> On May 2, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> On May 2, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>>> just to be sure, what is the "logo" you are talking about?
>>>> I'm talking about the Geronimo boxes as in 

>>>> this is a unique image that is to be used only for the 1.1 release 
>>>> in this case. Each image would be used only once, I can't see why 
>>>> attaching that unique image file to a unique page is such a bad thing.
>>> This is the same box logo which I'm talking about.
>>> I thought I had explained this already...
>>> I give up.  You do it how you want and if you end up copying the 
>>> image over and over I'll try to explain again later why duplicating 
>>> is bad.
>>> --jason
>>>> If the images are attached to confluence and we export the space, 
>>>> all the content gets exported. Hence we have a self contained copy 
>>>> of the web site with very limited external dependencies, that is for 
>>>> the actual downloads.
>>>> Even if we serve those images from svn we would still have to copy 
>>>> every single one from site/trunk/art to site/trunk/docs/images
>>>> One additional tiny benefit on the attachment approach is that the 
>>>> image served from confluence is approx 4 times smaller in size 
>>>> compared to the one we have on svn. I know, I did that to make the 
>>>> rendering a bit faster but my point is that we will still have to do 
>>>> some additional steps either way, not only svn cp.
>>>> Now, if we want to serve all the static content from all our the 
>>>> cwiki spaces directly from svn that's a different story.
>>>> Cheers!
>>>> Hernan
>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>> On May 2, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>>> Um... why?
>>>>>>> That mens for each release we have a duplicate image?  That is
>>>>>> not really, wasn't your point to have a unique image for each 
>>>>>> release page? maybe I didn't understand
>>>>> No, I want to have one box image in 
>>>>> per version, and have each 
>>>>> release page reference it (like a normal web page would do).
>>>>>>> man.  Thats like saying that each page has the banner image 
>>>>>>> attached to it, though admittedly that is much worse, but its

>>>>>>> along the same lines as what you are suggesting.
>>>>>> right, there is no point in copying the very same image over and

>>>>>> over again, so there is clearly a misunderstanding here.
>>>>> Um... I'm confused... you said:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> I think we should be consistent in the way we manage the 
>>>>> attachments with confluence.
>>>>> I rather have them attached to corresponding release page.
>>>>> There are not that many to copy over anyway.
>>>>> </snip>
>>>>> I read this as you want to have the images of the box log attached 
>>>>> to the corresponding release page, meaning each page has a separate 
>>>>> copy of the same logo.  I'm not sure how I could have read it any 
>>>>> differently :-(
>>>>>> If we are going to use just one image (independent of the Geronimo

>>>>>> version) on each release page then we definitively point to the 
>>>>>> same spot where we have the banners and logos on the repo.
>>>>>> However, if we want to have for each release page a new Geronimo

>>>>>> box with a matching version number, then we should to attach each

>>>>>> of those images to the corresponding release page. This is the 
>>>>>> approach I thought we were talking about. If we go this way then

>>>>>> we need to come up with a kind of standard way to create that 
>>>>>> image, today we are missing 1.0 and 1.1.1.
>>>>> Right, I don't think we need to have an image that matches the 
>>>>> exact version.  I think that 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc... all use the 
>>>>> 1.1 logo, 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc. all use the 2.0 logo, and so on.
>>>>> Ask Hiram to whip up a 1.0 version, he said it was relatively easy.
>>>>> I don't think we want to have separate images for 2.0-m5, 2.0-m6, 
>>>>> 2.0-m99, 2.0.1, etc, basically one image per major branch... else 
>>>>> we'd be asking Hiram to make new images all of the time ;-)
>>>>> --jason

View raw message