Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <48F79586.7030508@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:27:02 -0400
From: Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: maven site generation & genesis
References: <48F74FBB.3050200@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <48F74FBB.3050200@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In-line.


Joe Bohn wrote:
> 
> I've been making some changes to Genesis 1.5-SNAPSHOT to get maven site 
> generation working a little bit better and fix a few other things.  All 
> of this is because there were still some maven site generation issues 
> after releasing samples.  I think I have things working better now ... 
> but I have some questions:
> 
> - Regarding the site.xml ... it looked to me like the original intent 
> was to leverage completely the site.xml from genesis.  However, I could 
> never get this working correctly to include the header for the generated 
> site.  As a result ... I ended up including some of the same site.xml 
> content in samples such as the skin and banner definition. Is that a 
> problem?
> 
> - Genesis:  When we were getting samples out the door I ended up 
> including some temporary junk in the sample pom/site.  I've now removed 
> this and made some minor changes to genesis/branches/genesis-1.x. Should 
> I look at releasing Genesis 1.5 until 2.0 is complete or should we put 
> all emphasis on 2.0?  What is the current status of 2.0?   BTW .. I also 
> noticed that generating a site for genesis 2.0-SNAPSHOT itself has some 
> issues .... something else to look into.

Yes, we should release 1.5, so future maintenance releases of existing 
2.0/2.1 server, samples and specs can use it (there will be a 2.1.4 
Server release, just a mater of when...)

> 
> - Specs:  I've also made some similar changes locally for specs.  I 
> think these will produce more correct maven sites.  However, the would 
> require changes to depend on a newer Genesis and would require releasing 
> a new specs-parent (1.6).  I don't want to include these snapshot 
> dependencies which would hinder the ability to release specs for now ... 
> so I'm waiting on the Genesis decision.  If we want to push out a 
> Genesis 1.5 rc and get that up for vote.
> 
> General:  Is this really worth the effort?  It seems that we haven't put 
> much of an emphasis on maven sites.  Is this because there were problems 
> generating them or because we don't see much value?  Most of what we 
> have out there now is 2 years old (see 
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/maven-generated-documentation.html). It 
> think there are some concerns of how useful these are, particularly for 
> multi-project release (like server).  The site information generated is 
> per project and doesn't provide a good overview. IIUC, this can be 
> aggregated for some if not all things (like javadoc).  In the past we 
> have provided independent javadoc in addition to the site (which I 
> suspect is why, I suspect that the latest javadoc available for the 
> server from our site if for 2.0.1).  Should we focus energy on getting 
> independent javadoc release, improve maven site generation and leverage 
> that for javadoc/xrefs, or both?

Some users have asked for updated javadoc, so lets give it one more try 
before we abandon site generation.


> 
> Joe
> 
>