geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: web site update
Date Wed, 02 May 2007 22:01:36 GMT
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 :-(


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... :-(
> --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 http:// 
>>> small.jpg, 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  
>>>>>> crazy
>>>>> 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 
>>>> images/ 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