Re: [DISCUSS] Converting site documentation to Markdown

2013-10-05 Thread Jason van Zyl
I'm not saying we tell people not to use it, but for us I don't think it's an issue. It's been years since anything significant has been added to our FAQ and they are few enough that they can be converted by hand to add a TOC. I just want to make working with our documentation a little more enjo

Re: [DISCUSS] Converting site documentation to Markdown

2013-10-05 Thread Robert Scholte
https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/DOXIA-472 ? No, still not fixed. IMHO the fml can only be replaced if there's a macro to generate an index of all the questions. Robert Op Sat, 05 Oct 2013 22:59:42 +0200 schreef Stephen Connolly : Has the page title problem been fixed? Last I checked y

Re: [DISCUSS] Converting site documentation to Markdown

2013-10-05 Thread Stephen Connolly
Has the page title problem been fixed? Last I checked you could not set the page title that Doxia generates for HTML pages generated from markdown (Crosses fingers that it is fixed) On Saturday, 5 October 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote: > We current have multiple formats for our site documentation a

Re: Maven Core moving to 1.6

2013-10-05 Thread Stephen Connolly
I read this a Jason saying he is upping the minor version and then our previous vote kicks in and we drop 1.5 support on the new line. IMHO this is a commit issue after our previous vote, ie no need for another vote. Jason *could* have just committed the minor version bump but was being more polit

Re: [DISCUSS] Converting site documentation to Markdown

2013-10-05 Thread Jason van Zyl
Tools are already there, just read from one format and write to another using Doxia. I'm definitely not going to do it manually. On Oct 5, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: > If we were to deprecate one or more documentation formats, wouldn't it > make sense to make a plugin to auto

Re: [DISCUSS] Converting site documentation to Markdown

2013-10-05 Thread Kristian Rosenvold
If we were to deprecate one or more documentation formats, wouldn't it make sense to make a plugin to automate the conversion ? After all, there's a few thousand sites out there that might want such a modernization ? Kristian 2013/10/5 Tamás Cservenák : > +10 for markdown and getting rid of old

Re: [DISCUSS] Converting site documentation to Markdown

2013-10-05 Thread Tamás Cservenák
+10 for markdown and getting rid of old formats. Markdown is really easy, and as Jason says, tooling for editing it is really superb. Thanks, ~t~ (mobile) On Oct 5, 2013 5:19 PM, "Jason van Zyl" wrote: > We current have multiple formats for our site documentation and two of > them no one else in

[DISCUSS] Converting site documentation to Markdown

2013-10-05 Thread Jason van Zyl
We current have multiple formats for our site documentation and two of them no one else in the world uses except us. We created xdoc here a long time ago in the Jakarta project, and APT has lost in the world of markup. I ported it from another project many years ago but there are many better opt

Re: Maven Core moving to 1.6

2013-10-05 Thread Robert Scholte
Isn't this the same call for vote as http://markmail.org/message/vbkglwgcxkcpn7pe ? Robert Op Sat, 05 Oct 2013 14:36:05 +0200 schreef Hervé BOUTEMY : +1 for 1.6 in Maven 3.2.0 Le samedi 5 octobre 2013 13:22:41 Anders Hammar a écrit : +1 for 3.2 (or greater) -1 for 3.1.x /Anders On Sat

Re: Maven Core moving to 1.6

2013-10-05 Thread Hervé BOUTEMY
+1 for 1.6 in Maven 3.2.0 Le samedi 5 octobre 2013 13:22:41 Anders Hammar a écrit : > +1 for 3.2 (or greater) > -1 for 3.1.x > > /Anders > > On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > +1 > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > Fr

Re: Maven Core moving to 1.6

2013-10-05 Thread Kristian Rosenvold
+1 (i think 3.2 is the obvious v) 5. okt. 2013 13:23 skrev "Anders Hammar" følgende: > +1 for 3.2 (or greater) > -1 for 3.1.x > > /Anders > > > On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > +1 > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: St

Re: Maven Core moving to 1.6

2013-10-05 Thread Anders Hammar
+1 for 3.2 (or greater) -1 for 3.1.x /Anders On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > +1 > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Stephen Connolly > > To: Maven Developers List > > Cc: > > Sent: Saturday, 5 October 2013, 9:35 > > Subject: Re: Maven

Re: Maven Core moving to 1.6

2013-10-05 Thread Mark Struberg
+1 LieGrue, strub - Original Message - > From: Stephen Connolly > To: Maven Developers List > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, 5 October 2013, 9:35 > Subject: Re: Maven Core moving to 1.6 > > +1 > > > On Saturday, 5 October 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> Given the vote we had about relea

Re: [ANN] Maven 3.1.1 Release

2013-10-05 Thread Mark Derricutt
On 5/10/2013, at 3:18 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > Couldn't have done it without the Fredalizer. +100. Good to see the release train rolling again. Mark signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Leaving Maven Core POMs at major.minor-SNAPSHOT

2013-10-05 Thread Robert Scholte
Good catch! Op Fri, 04 Oct 2013 13:18:50 +0200 schreef Igor Fedorenko : Practical question. What should be supported maven version range for new ITs introduced during 3.1.2 development, [3.1,)? This means we'd need to tag ITs, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to successfully rerun IT

Re: Maven Core moving to 1.6

2013-10-05 Thread Stephen Connolly
+1 On Saturday, 5 October 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote: > Given the vote we had about releases after September does anyone mind if I > update the source/target levels to 1.6 for the core? > > Thanks, > > Jason > > -- > Jason van Zyl > Founder,