[
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSITE-533?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Lukas Theussl updated MSITE-533:
--------------------------------
Description:
As I understand it, site:stage is supposed to be a local preview of
site:deploy. However, the site construction is very different in both cases:
site:stage changes the <url> pom element of each reactor project and generates
the site directly at the final target (staging) location. Unfortunately, this
suffers from a couple of bugs, in particular wrt relative links in multi-module
builds, which is potentially confusing for users (and certain developers...) if
they find that the staged site is different from the deployed site. site:deploy
OTOH generates each site into its own target and then uses wagon to copy the
single sites to the final destination.
I also don't see why SiteStageMojo extends SiteMojo, staging shouldn't have
anything to do with site generation. IMO site:deploy, site:stage and
site:stage-deploy should all do the same basic thing: take a pre-generated site
directory and copy it to some target. The difference is only in the target
location: site:deploy goes to distributionManagement.site.url, site:stage goes
to stagingDirectory on the local file system, and site:stage-deploy goes to
stagingSiteURL.
Since site:deploy supports a local file copy, I propose to replace site:stage
by such a local deploy. This would make site:stage and deploy equivalent,
reduce confusion and maintenance efforts and make site:stage a true preview per
definition. Are there any arguments that speak against it?
was:
As I understand it, site:stage is supposed to be a local preview of
site:deploy. However, the site construction is very different in both cases:
site:stage changes the <url> pom element of each project and generates the site
directly at the target location. Unfortunately, this suffers from a couple of
bugs, in particular regarding relative links in multi-module builds, which is
potentially confusing for users (and certain developers...) if they find that
the staged site is different from the deployed site. site:deploy OTOH generates
each site at its own target location and then uses wagen to copy the single
sites to the final destination.
Since site:deploy supports a local file copy, I propose to replace site:stage
by such a local deploy. This would make site:stage and deploy equivalent,
reduce confusion and maintenance efforts and make site:stage a true preview per
definition. Are there any arguments that speak against it?
> make site:stage a local file deploy
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: MSITE-533
> URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSITE-533
> Project: Maven 2.x and 3.x Site Plugin
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: site:deploy, site:stage(-deploy)
> Affects Versions: 2.2
> Reporter: Lukas Theussl
>
> As I understand it, site:stage is supposed to be a local preview of
> site:deploy. However, the site construction is very different in both cases:
> site:stage changes the <url> pom element of each reactor project and
> generates the site directly at the final target (staging) location.
> Unfortunately, this suffers from a couple of bugs, in particular wrt relative
> links in multi-module builds, which is potentially confusing for users (and
> certain developers...) if they find that the staged site is different from
> the deployed site. site:deploy OTOH generates each site into its own target
> and then uses wagon to copy the single sites to the final destination.
> I also don't see why SiteStageMojo extends SiteMojo, staging shouldn't have
> anything to do with site generation. IMO site:deploy, site:stage and
> site:stage-deploy should all do the same basic thing: take a pre-generated
> site directory and copy it to some target. The difference is only in the
> target location: site:deploy goes to distributionManagement.site.url,
> site:stage goes to stagingDirectory on the local file system, and
> site:stage-deploy goes to stagingSiteURL.
> Since site:deploy supports a local file copy, I propose to replace site:stage
> by such a local deploy. This would make site:stage and deploy equivalent,
> reduce confusion and maintenance efforts and make site:stage a true preview
> per definition. Are there any arguments that speak against it?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
