On 27/07/2014 15:15, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:24 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 26 July 2014 19:09, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Jul 26, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Gary Gregory
>> wrote:
OK, so do we want:
- Always have the release site be the "main" site.
-
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:24 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 26 July 2014 19:09, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 26, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
> >>
> >> OK, so do we want:
> >>
> >> - Always have the release site be the "main" site.
> >> - Optionally have a separate SNAPSHOT site.
> >
On 26 July 2014 19:09, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 26, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>> OK, so do we want:
>>
>> - Always have the release site be the "main" site.
>> - Optionally have a separate SNAPSHOT site.
>>
>> Do we put this magic in commons-parent?
>
> I prefer the opposit
> On Jul 26, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> OK, so do we want:
>
> - Always have the release site be the "main" site.
> - Optionally have a separate SNAPSHOT site.
>
> Do we put this magic in commons-parent?
I prefer the opposite - site is current dev. Download pages always refle
OK, so do we want:
- Always have the release site be the "main" site.
- Optionally have a separate SNAPSHOT site.
Do we put this magic in commons-parent?
Gary
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:07 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 25 July 2014 18:03, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> > On 2014-07-25, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
On 25 July 2014 18:03, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2014-07-25, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> It's that or we agree never to publish a SNAPSHOT site.
I don't see that as a strict dichotomy.
> For the record, I do value SNAPSHOT sites so we can also show what we
> are working on.
That does not necessar
On 2014-07-25, Gary Gregory wrote:
> It's that or we agree never to publish a SNAPSHOT site.
For the record, I do value SNAPSHOT sites so we can also show what we
are working on. I'm not convinced we need to enforce the same policy
for all components. OTOH I don't feel strong enough about it to
But the point is to be able to update the site with documentation fixes
while keeping the rest of the site about the released software.
The only way to do that is with documentation-only branch it sounds like,
and it does not matter what SCM you use for that.
It's that or we agree never to publis
BTW.: I don't see any value in the SNAPSHOT site. Users will always want to
look at the site of the release, since that is what they are using.
2014-07-25 11:34 GMT+02:00 Benedikt Ritter :
> You're probably refering to the Dependency Information report, I've posted
> on the other thread. I think
You're probably refering to the Dependency Information report, I've posted
on the other thread. I think it would be sufficient to configure it to use
the latest release (we already have this information in the properties used
by the build plugin).
Creating a documentation branch feels like a lot o
On 23 July 2014 00:07, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> Snapshots site are useless to users and somewhat useful to developers.
>
> It is nice to be able to republish a site at will to fix documentation bugs
> _without_ releasing a new version.
>
> But, this is usually done by dragging along a SNA
Hi All:
Snapshots site are useless to users and somewhat useful to developers.
It is nice to be able to republish a site at will to fix documentation bugs
_without_ releasing a new version.
But, this is usually done by dragging along a SNAPSHOT version of
everything.
What to do?
We need to pub
12 matches
Mail list logo
