Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 83664 invoked by uid 500); 12 Aug 2003 06:46:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: no List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 83652 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2003 06:46:19 -0000 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 07:46:18 +0100 Subject: Re: where should the maven-generated website go? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: James Strachan To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 08:54 pm, Noel J. Bergman wrote: >> The only disagreement is - should all this dynamically generated stuff >> go into CVS or not. It seems silly to put it into CVS - since its >> trivial to regenerate the site at any point using Maven. Its worse >> than >> saying lets check every version of a jar into CVS. > > One of the reasons for putting dynamically generated artifacts into > CVS is > that in the event of a recovery situation, CVS is on one server, and > the web > sites are on another, so recovery can be relatively quick. It is > unreasonable to assume that the infrastructure team has the tools, > expertise > or time to use each different publishing engine. But the developers on the projects can easily do this for them? It takes about 5 minutes to completely redeploy the website. Is that too long? James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org