jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Slater <li...@humanesoftware.com>
Subject Re: move site outside of maven?
Date Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:35:02 GMT
On Mar 20, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:

>> My guess is that the best way to handle this is to use Maven's
>> version of anakia to generate the site (for developers) but only
>> deploy a small subset of that to jackrabbit.apache.org (without
>> the reports, xref, etc.).
> OK, I think that's reasonable. How about if we also generated static
> javadoc and xref reports for each release? That should be good enough
> for the occasional user.

 From the perspective of one such (more) occasional user, I would not  
want the main site to change between releases. Once jackrabbit 1.0 or  
1.1 is released, I'm not likely to continue building from source. So  
when I go to the jackrabbit.apache.org website, I expect to find the  
docs (xref, javadocs, user documentation, etc.) for the current  
release. If I'm downloading the binaries for jackrabbit, I should not  
have to also download the source code for that version and run maven  
to generate all the reports myself - that should be available to me  
(assuming I'm using the current release) on the jackrabbit web site.  
There are people who don't use maven themselves, and requiring them  
to build the site on their own with a tool they would have to  
download and install could be an "undue burden".

If the site were only generated once for each release, and that  
generated site checked into subversion, it seems like that would  
solve most of the issues. You can use the maven.xdoc.date and  
maven.xdoc.version properties to place the date generated and version  
of the software in the grey bar along the top, making it clear to  
visitors what version of the documentation they're looking at. I  
don't know how often user documentation (the FAQ, Getting Started,  
First Hops, etc) needs to be updated between releases, but if it is  
rare, it shouldn't be hard to regenerate the site, and only check in  
the changed user docs.


View raw message