Of course, thanks for the reminder. While the second can likely be
automated, the linking/bookmark issue is definitely a problem.
I can understand how that is a general issue and a reason to publish
to /. However, I'm not sure how that impacts the decision of using -
or / as the version sep
On 5/23/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm fine with either - though the latter does make a bit more sense
to me (thinking consistency with the repository).
I'm not sure I understand why it's a bigger change with more
maintenance, though - can you explain that in more detail?
I'm
I'm fine with either - though the latter does make a bit more sense
to me (thinking consistency with the repository).
I'm not sure I understand why it's a bigger change with more
maintenance, though - can you explain that in more detail?
Thanks!
- Brett
On 24/05/2007, at 7:40 AM, Wendy Sm
On 5/23/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
Ultimately, I think site-deploy should do the latter, and the /maven-
site-plugin directory should point to different versions of the
documentation (probably an autogenerated page). This is totally
consistent with the layout you are stting
+1
Ultimately, I think site-deploy should do the latter, and the /maven-
site-plugin directory should point to different versions of the
documentation (probably an autogenerated page). This is totally
consistent with the layout you are stting up though, just a next
step. wdyt?
- Brett
O
On 4/21/07, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
New plan.
* Change nothing about the way 'mvn site-deploy' currently works-- it
will publish to, for example,
http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-site-plugin. This will be used
for the docs for the latest release, and avoids breaking everyo
Found original JIRA ticket
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2679
John
jallen wrote:
>
>
> -snip-
>
> So here's another appeal from me, please consider an artifact's site part
> of its state and thus unique in terms of group, artifact and version by
> default and no longer assume that an
(Sorry if this results in a re-send, dodgy connection)
I have contributed to a number of threads in the past regarding the fact
that maven site's are just another set of meta-data or, if you will, a view
upon an artifact and therefore the site for a specific version of an
artifact must remain val
On 22/04/2007, at 7:47 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
Agreed. Assembly may be a special case, because it changed so much
from 2.1 to 2.2 -- my 2.1 descriptors didn't work with 2.2 last time I
tried it (which could have been with a snapshot.)
Should no longer be the case, but if it is - file a bug. J
On 4/21/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now that, theoretically, the plugins are all documented up to their
current release and improvements in docs can wait until the next
release, this sounds fine to me.
Thanks. (I want the snapshot docs published as well, just not linked
promin
Now that, theoretically, the plugins are all documented up to their
current release and improvements in docs can wait until the next
release, this sounds fine to me.
However, I'm not sure how this helps the current situation, since
assembly 2.2-beta-1 is a release. It should document the pl
On 4/20/07, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...meaning leave the docs for the latest release exactly where they
are, and publish the snapshot docs somewhere else entirely.
New plan.
* Change nothing about the way 'mvn site-deploy' currently works-- it
will publish to, for example,
http
On 4/20/07, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only other thing I can come up with is to point
to where we want the snapshot docs, and
use the staging url for the released docs. Seems backwards, but I
want 'mvn site-deploy' to just work during development, so you can't
accidentally ove
What I do is I have a profile with activation on performRelease=true
that change the distribution management to something like
scp://blablablbla/release/${project.version}
So the standard url is used for the dev version and everytime a
release is made, the release of version X.Y.Z is stored in t
On 4/20/07, Stephane Nicoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sounds good, except that I would put all stuff of a plugin under
m.a.o/plugins/${artifactId}. What about the current link with your
scenario?
A redirect in .htaccess from /plugins/maven-xyz-plugin to
maven-xyz-plugin-1.2? That would mean
I agree, the main url for the plugin should be the same, even if it's just an
index page to the available versions.
-Original Message-
From: Stephane Nicoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:21 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Publishing plugin
Sounds good, except that I would put all stuff of a plugin under
m.a.o/plugins/${artifactId}. What about the current link with your
scenario?
Thanks,
Stéphane
On 4/21/07, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A while ago I pushed for publishing the plugin docs from svn, because
there was so mu
17 matches
Mail list logo
