geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: Java doc is Geronimo 2.0.1 API
Date Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:05:14 GMT
I'm not really sure why the javadoc is checked into svn.  I was just 
following the same process used for 2.0.1.  I suppose there is nothing 
to prevent us from directly copying the content somewhere under 
/www/geronimo.apache.org as we do for the maven generated sites.  That 
certainly sounds more workable and won't get us in trouble with infra 
(BTW, I did get tapped on the shoulder over this ... it apparently 
really slowed down the sync process which I supposed would still be an 
issue with a direct copy as well).

Joe


Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Thanks Joe!
> 
> I'm not sure why the javadoc is checked in into svn in the first
> place. Seems to me like that's unnecessary since we should always be
> able to regenerate the javadoc from source. So, I'm ok with removing
> any javadoc from svn but we should keep the javadoc for any major
> Geronimo version accessible online. I guess right now that should be
> 2.1.3 and 2.0.2.
> 
> Jarek
> 
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I built and checked in the server 2.1.3 javadocs.  This seemed to be the
>> most expedient thing to do but there are some concerns:
>>
>> #1 This is a huge amount of content to include in svn.  I think infra will
>> not be happy with us.
>> #2 Given #1, I debated deleting the 2.0.1 javadoc.  However, this won't save
>> anything given that svn must keep the history.  It will save anyone from
>> getting all of the 2.0.1 content if they check out the site trunk.  What do
>> you think, should we delete or keep 2.0.1 javadoc?
>> #3 Also given #1, it's probably a good thing that we haven't done this for
>> each release.  Perhaps we should just do this once for each major version?
>>  Thoughts?
>> #4 We had discussed using the maven generated site rather than distributing
>> this javadoc.  However that also presents some problems:
>> - Currently it doesn't build for tags/2.1.3 (at least not for me).
>> - When it does build, the javadoc is per module/project.  So rather than a
>> complete view of javadoc as with that just checked in you must first
>> navigate to the module of interest and then you can view the javadoc for
>> that module. This doesn't seem as useful to me.
>>
>> I'm not sure if I want to take the time to investigate the mvn site issues
>> right now .... anybody else interested?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>> Ted Kirby wrote:
>>>> From the home page, if I choose Javadoc as the first choice under the
>>> Development section of the left nav bar, I get 2.0.1 Javadoc.  This
>>> should be updated to 2.1.3.
>>>
>>> Ted Kirby
>>>
>>
> 


Mime
View raw message