Mailing-List: contact doxia-dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: doxia-dev@maven.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <46CD6EFC.5040008@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:26:52 +0200
From: Lukas Theussl <ltheussl@apache.org>
Organization: Apache Software Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: doxia-dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Re: Releasing Doxia
References: <46CB4602.7020108@apache.org>
 <B7D85D59-3587-4ED8-8EFC-03CED0BD39B0@apache.org>
 <8D9B00CA-B9BA-44FB-B2A8-F2710D28E11E@maven.org>
In-Reply-To: <8D9B00CA-B9BA-44FB-B2A8-F2710D28E11E@maven.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[sorry for the late reply, I didn't have any email for 2 days]

I agree with Jason here. The site-tools seem to belong rather into the 
site-plugin than into doxia. I think the current close connection has 
some drawbacks, it provokes confusion about responsibilities (example: 
anchor creation for section titles, clearly a task for site-tools but 
currently done in the modules).

However, right now it's not completely true that one can use the core 
without the site-tools (see xhtml sink), but in principle it should be 
like that, and it's one of my goals to achieve that for beta-1.


So IMO we should unify the version number and release them together for 
now. Once they are functionally independent we can think about 
separating them.


-Lukas


Jason van Zyl wrote:
> 
> On 21 Aug 07, at 6:05 PM 21 Aug 07, Brett Porter wrote:
> 
>> To date, I have always been in favour of one trunk, and one version.
>>
>> I understand the need for a clear separate and for Doxia to be  useful 
>> without the site tools, but I don't think separating the  releases was 
>> the right way to do it.
>>
> 
> I use them completely separately. I barely touch the site generation  
> stuff in my integration. The site tools are completely layered upon  the 
> core. If they are going to be clear and separate then they are  released 
> separately and have separate trunks. I think people who  currently work 
> on them have never used them for anything other then  the site plugin. 
> It's also not hard to create another JIRA project.
> 
> I don't particularly care if people want to glob them back together  but 
> they are functionally separate. I can use the core without the  site 
> tools, one is clearly and extension of the other. In this alpha  state 
> changes in the site tools require changes in the core but that  should 
> not be the case for very long.
> 
>> - Brett
>>
>> On 22/08/2007, at 6:07 AM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>
>>> Creating a separate thread for release questions...
>>>
>>> Do we have two releases in reality? On one hand we have  doxia:doxia 
>>> (currently slated for alpha-9) and on the other we  have 
>>> doxia:doxia-sitetools (currently slated for 1.0). Is  everybody OK 
>>> with those versions?
>>>
>>> I am not. Having two different versions for these two will totally  
>>> mess up JIRA. Therefor I'd like to use 1.0-alpha-9 for both, this  
>>> time. If we want separate releases for them in the future, then we  
>>> need two separate projects for doxia and doxia-sitetools in JIRA.
>>>
>>> In order for the maven-site-plugin to be able to use the new  
>>> doxia:doxia we need to release doxia:doxia-sitetools.
>>>
>>> Are there any other questions regarding the release?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dennis Lundberg
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jason
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder and PMC Chair, Apache Maven
> jason at sonatype dot com
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
>