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 21:49:45 GMT
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... :-(


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 
>> GMOxSITE/, 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