You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com> on 2007/05/01 14:58:12 UTC
web site update
Hi Folks,
Looking at the download page (http://geronimo.apache.org/downloads.html) I was wondering if it actually wouldn't be better to have all the downloads for one specific release together.
Today we have 2 sections, that is Binaries and Sources. I propose we get rid of those 2 sections and consolidate all the downloads grouped by release under the new section "Available Releases".
If nobody disagree I will go ahead and make this change. New ideas also welcome!
Cheers!
Hernan
Re: web site update
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On May 1, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Let's do it!
>
> I'll start moving some pages around. Do we have a "Geronimo Box"
> without any specific version? (http://geronimo.apache.org/
> downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg)
No, but we have versions for 1.1, 1.2 and 2.0:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/site/trunk/art/
--jason
Re: web site update
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On May 2, 2007, at 7:34 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> Also, why are the release notes using closer.cgi? Its a PITA when
>> you want to go look at these small text files to see what they
>> have to use this mirror redirector, which is intended for larger
>> downloads :-(
>
> The way we download the files is the same way we have been using
> since the very beginning, long before the first face lift. Not sure
> why you bring this up just now !?
Because I finally got annoyed enough to mention it. :-P
>>> I see so you just left one box logo on the downloads page then?
>>> Not the direction I would have hopped... and its still got that
>>> ugly border... :-(
>
> I didn't attach any new images, however I did fix the border
> problem earlier today.
Yay.
> It was you who added the 1.1 image in first place on the download
> page (Mar 26, 2007 14:52 - Jason Dillon: Add the nice box, using
> svn url at the moment, should change). I then changed it with a
> smaller jpg version for faster rendering.
Aight, as long as only one page (ie. the downloads.html) page has the
images attached, and you link the release pages to those images (and
not attach them to the release page) then we are sorted.
> Either way, that image refers to 1.1, that's why I asked for one
> without any version specific info so we can add it to the "general"
> download page. FWIW we are also missing 1.0 and 1.1.1 boxes so we
> can add to each download page the corresponding image.
You'd have to ask Hiram for that. Personally, I like the version,
and it would be nice to see the box on each release page, as the AMQ
releases are for their 4.1.x stuff.
--jason
Re: web site update
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
Jason Dillon wrote:
> Also, why are the release notes using closer.cgi? Its a PITA when you
> want to go look at these small text files to see what they have to use
> this mirror redirector, which is intended for larger downloads :-(
The way we download the files is the same way we have been using since the very beginning, long before the first face lift. Not sure why you bring this up just now !?
>
> --jason
>
>
> On May 2, 2007, at 2:49 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> I see so you just left one box logo on the downloads page then? Not
>> the direction I would have hopped... and its still got that ugly
>> border... :-(
I didn't attach any new images, however I did fix the border problem earlier today.
It was you who added the 1.1 image in first place on the download page (Mar 26, 2007 14:52 - Jason Dillon: Add the nice box, using svn url at the moment, should change). I then changed it with a smaller jpg version for faster rendering.
Either way, that image refers to 1.1, that's why I asked for one without any version specific info so we can add it to the "general" download page. FWIW we are also missing 1.0 and 1.1.1 boxes so we can add to each download page the corresponding image.
WRT http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSITE/downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg I mentioned in the other thread you replied:
<snip>
This is the same box logo which I'm talking about.
I thought I had explained this already...
I give up. You do it how you want and if you end up copying the image over and over I'll try to explain again later why duplicating is bad.
</snip>
*geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg* is not the same image as *geronimo-box-1.2-small.jpg* which is not the same image as *geronimo-box-2.0-small.jpg* ..., so what is it I am duplicating?
Cheers!
Hernan
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 2, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>
>>> On May 2, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>>> just to be sure, what is the "logo" you are talking about?
>>>>
>>>> I'm talking about the Geronimo boxes as in
>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSITE/downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg,
>>>> this is a unique image that is to be used only for the 1.1 release
>>>> in this case. Each image would be used only once, I can't see why
>>>> attaching that unique image file to a unique page is such a bad thing.
>>>
>>> This is the same box logo which I'm talking about.
>>>
>>> I thought I had explained this already...
>>>
>>> I give up. You do it how you want and if you end up copying the
>>> image over and over I'll try to explain again later why duplicating
>>> is bad.
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If the images are attached to confluence and we export the space,
>>>> all the content gets exported. Hence we have a self contained copy
>>>> of the web site with very limited external dependencies, that is for
>>>> the actual downloads.
>>>>
>>>> Even if we serve those images from svn we would still have to copy
>>>> every single one from site/trunk/art to site/trunk/docs/images
>>>>
>>>> One additional tiny benefit on the attachment approach is that the
>>>> image served from confluence is approx 4 times smaller in size
>>>> compared to the one we have on svn. I know, I did that to make the
>>>> rendering a bit faster but my point is that we will still have to do
>>>> some additional steps either way, not only svn cp.
>>>>
>>>> Now, if we want to serve all the static content from all our the
>>>> cwiki spaces directly from svn that's a different story.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>> Hernan
>>>>
>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>> On May 2, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>>> Um... why?
>>>>>>> That mens for each release we have a duplicate image? That is crazy
>>>>>> not really, wasn't your point to have a unique image for each
>>>>>> release page? maybe I didn't understand
>>>>> No, I want to have one box image in
>>>>> http://geronimo.apache.org/images/ per version, and have each
>>>>> release page reference it (like a normal web page would do).
>>>>>>> man. Thats like saying that each page has the banner image
>>>>>>> attached to it, though admittedly that is much worse, but its
>>>>>>> along the same lines as what you are suggesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> right, there is no point in copying the very same image over and
>>>>>> over again, so there is clearly a misunderstanding here.
>>>>> Um... I'm confused... you said:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> I think we should be consistent in the way we manage the
>>>>> attachments with confluence.
>>>>> I rather have them attached to corresponding release page.
>>>>> There are not that many to copy over anyway.
>>>>> </snip>
>>>>> I read this as you want to have the images of the box log attached
>>>>> to the corresponding release page, meaning each page has a separate
>>>>> copy of the same logo. I'm not sure how I could have read it any
>>>>> differently :-(
>>>>>> If we are going to use just one image (independent of the Geronimo
>>>>>> version) on each release page then we definitively point to the
>>>>>> same spot where we have the banners and logos on the repo.
>>>>>> However, if we want to have for each release page a new Geronimo
>>>>>> box with a matching version number, then we should to attach each
>>>>>> of those images to the corresponding release page. This is the
>>>>>> approach I thought we were talking about. If we go this way then
>>>>>> we need to come up with a kind of standard way to create that
>>>>>> image, today we are missing 1.0 and 1.1.1.
>>>>> Right, I don't think we need to have an image that matches the
>>>>> exact version. I think that 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc... all use the
>>>>> 1.1 logo, 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc. all use the 2.0 logo, and so on.
>>>>> Ask Hiram to whip up a 1.0 version, he said it was relatively easy.
>>>>> I don't think we want to have separate images for 2.0-m5, 2.0-m6,
>>>>> 2.0-m99, 2.0.1, etc, basically one image per major branch... else
>>>>> we'd be asking Hiram to make new images all of the time ;-)
>>>>> --jason
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: web site update
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Also, why are the release notes using closer.cgi? Its a PITA when
you want to go look at these small text files to see what they have
to use this mirror redirector, which is intended for larger
downloads :-(
--jason
On May 2, 2007, at 2:49 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> I see so you just left one box logo on the downloads page then?
> Not the direction I would have hopped... and its still got that
> ugly border... :-(
>
> --jason
>
>
>
> On May 2, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> On May 2, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>> just to be sure, what is the "logo" you are talking about?
>>>
>>> I'm talking about the Geronimo boxes as in http://
>>> cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSITE/downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-
>>> small.jpg, this is a unique image that is to be used only for the
>>> 1.1 release in this case. Each image would be used only once, I
>>> can't see why attaching that unique image file to a unique page
>>> is such a bad thing.
>>
>> This is the same box logo which I'm talking about.
>>
>> I thought I had explained this already...
>>
>> I give up. You do it how you want and if you end up copying the
>> image over and over I'll try to explain again later why
>> duplicating is bad.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>>
>>> If the images are attached to confluence and we export the space,
>>> all the content gets exported. Hence we have a self contained
>>> copy of the web site with very limited external dependencies,
>>> that is for the actual downloads.
>>>
>>> Even if we serve those images from svn we would still have to
>>> copy every single one from site/trunk/art to site/trunk/docs/images
>>>
>>> One additional tiny benefit on the attachment approach is that
>>> the image served from confluence is approx 4 times smaller in
>>> size compared to the one we have on svn. I know, I did that to
>>> make the rendering a bit faster but my point is that we will
>>> still have to do some additional steps either way, not only svn cp.
>>>
>>> Now, if we want to serve all the static content from all our the
>>> cwiki spaces directly from svn that's a different story.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> Hernan
>>>
>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>> On May 2, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>> Um... why?
>>>>>> That mens for each release we have a duplicate image? That is
>>>>>> crazy
>>>>> not really, wasn't your point to have a unique image for each
>>>>> release page? maybe I didn't understand
>>>> No, I want to have one box image in http://geronimo.apache.org/
>>>> images/ per version, and have each release page reference it
>>>> (like a normal web page would do).
>>>>>> man. Thats like saying that each page has the banner image
>>>>>> attached to it, though admittedly that is much worse, but its
>>>>>> along the same lines as what you are suggesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> right, there is no point in copying the very same image over
>>>>> and over again, so there is clearly a misunderstanding here.
>>>> Um... I'm confused... you said:
>>>> <snip>
>>>> I think we should be consistent in the way we manage the
>>>> attachments with confluence.
>>>> I rather have them attached to corresponding release page.
>>>> There are not that many to copy over anyway.
>>>> </snip>
>>>> I read this as you want to have the images of the box log
>>>> attached to the corresponding release page, meaning each page
>>>> has a separate copy of the same logo. I'm not sure how I could
>>>> have read it any differently :-(
>>>>> If we are going to use just one image (independent of the
>>>>> Geronimo version) on each release page then we definitively
>>>>> point to the same spot where we have the banners and logos on
>>>>> the repo.
>>>>> However, if we want to have for each release page a new
>>>>> Geronimo box with a matching version number, then we should to
>>>>> attach each of those images to the corresponding release page.
>>>>> This is the approach I thought we were talking about. If we go
>>>>> this way then we need to come up with a kind of standard way to
>>>>> create that image, today we are missing 1.0 and 1.1.1.
>>>> Right, I don't think we need to have an image that matches the
>>>> exact version. I think that 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc... all use
>>>> the 1.1 logo, 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc. all use the 2.0 logo, and
>>>> so on.
>>>> Ask Hiram to whip up a 1.0 version, he said it was relatively easy.
>>>> I don't think we want to have separate images for 2.0-m5, 2.0-
>>>> m6, 2.0-m99, 2.0.1, etc, basically one image per major branch...
>>>> else we'd be asking Hiram to make new images all of the time ;-)
>>>> --jason
>>
>
Re: web site update
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I see so you just left one box logo on the downloads page then? Not
the direction I would have hopped... and its still got that ugly
border... :-(
--jason
On May 2, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> On May 2, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>> just to be sure, what is the "logo" you are talking about?
>>
>> I'm talking about the Geronimo boxes as in http://cwiki.apache.org/
>> GMOxSITE/downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg, this is a
>> unique image that is to be used only for the 1.1 release in this
>> case. Each image would be used only once, I can't see why
>> attaching that unique image file to a unique page is such a bad
>> thing.
>
> This is the same box logo which I'm talking about.
>
> I thought I had explained this already...
>
> I give up. You do it how you want and if you end up copying the
> image over and over I'll try to explain again later why duplicating
> is bad.
>
> --jason
>
>
>
>> If the images are attached to confluence and we export the space,
>> all the content gets exported. Hence we have a self contained copy
>> of the web site with very limited external dependencies, that is
>> for the actual downloads.
>>
>> Even if we serve those images from svn we would still have to copy
>> every single one from site/trunk/art to site/trunk/docs/images
>>
>> One additional tiny benefit on the attachment approach is that the
>> image served from confluence is approx 4 times smaller in size
>> compared to the one we have on svn. I know, I did that to make the
>> rendering a bit faster but my point is that we will still have to
>> do some additional steps either way, not only svn cp.
>>
>> Now, if we want to serve all the static content from all our the
>> cwiki spaces directly from svn that's a different story.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Hernan
>>
>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> On May 2, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>> Um... why?
>>>>> That mens for each release we have a duplicate image? That is
>>>>> crazy
>>>> not really, wasn't your point to have a unique image for each
>>>> release page? maybe I didn't understand
>>> No, I want to have one box image in http://geronimo.apache.org/
>>> images/ per version, and have each release page reference it
>>> (like a normal web page would do).
>>>>> man. Thats like saying that each page has the banner image
>>>>> attached to it, though admittedly that is much worse, but its
>>>>> along the same lines as what you are suggesting.
>>>>
>>>> right, there is no point in copying the very same image over and
>>>> over again, so there is clearly a misunderstanding here.
>>> Um... I'm confused... you said:
>>> <snip>
>>> I think we should be consistent in the way we manage the
>>> attachments with confluence.
>>> I rather have them attached to corresponding release page.
>>> There are not that many to copy over anyway.
>>> </snip>
>>> I read this as you want to have the images of the box log
>>> attached to the corresponding release page, meaning each page has
>>> a separate copy of the same logo. I'm not sure how I could have
>>> read it any differently :-(
>>>> If we are going to use just one image (independent of the
>>>> Geronimo version) on each release page then we definitively
>>>> point to the same spot where we have the banners and logos on
>>>> the repo.
>>>> However, if we want to have for each release page a new Geronimo
>>>> box with a matching version number, then we should to attach
>>>> each of those images to the corresponding release page. This is
>>>> the approach I thought we were talking about. If we go this way
>>>> then we need to come up with a kind of standard way to create
>>>> that image, today we are missing 1.0 and 1.1.1.
>>> Right, I don't think we need to have an image that matches the
>>> exact version. I think that 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc... all use
>>> the 1.1 logo, 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc. all use the 2.0 logo, and
>>> so on.
>>> Ask Hiram to whip up a 1.0 version, he said it was relatively easy.
>>> I don't think we want to have separate images for 2.0-m5, 2.0-m6,
>>> 2.0-m99, 2.0.1, etc, basically one image per major branch... else
>>> we'd be asking Hiram to make new images all of the time ;-)
>>> --jason
>
Re: web site update
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On May 2, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> just to be sure, what is the "logo" you are talking about?
>
> I'm talking about the Geronimo boxes as in http://cwiki.apache.org/
> GMOxSITE/downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg, this is a
> unique image that is to be used only for the 1.1 release in this
> case. Each image would be used only once, I can't see why attaching
> that unique image file to a unique page is such a bad thing.
This is the same box logo which I'm talking about.
I thought I had explained this already...
I give up. You do it how you want and if you end up copying the
image over and over I'll try to explain again later why duplicating
is bad.
--jason
> If the images are attached to confluence and we export the space,
> all the content gets exported. Hence we have a self contained copy
> of the web site with very limited external dependencies, that is
> for the actual downloads.
>
> Even if we serve those images from svn we would still have to copy
> every single one from site/trunk/art to site/trunk/docs/images
>
> One additional tiny benefit on the attachment approach is that the
> image served from confluence is approx 4 times smaller in size
> compared to the one we have on svn. I know, I did that to make the
> rendering a bit faster but my point is that we will still have to
> do some additional steps either way, not only svn cp.
>
> Now, if we want to serve all the static content from all our the
> cwiki spaces directly from svn that's a different story.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> On May 2, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>> Um... why?
>>>> That mens for each release we have a duplicate image? That is
>>>> crazy
>>> not really, wasn't your point to have a unique image for each
>>> release page? maybe I didn't understand
>> No, I want to have one box image in http://geronimo.apache.org/
>> images/ per version, and have each release page reference it (like
>> a normal web page would do).
>>>> man. Thats like saying that each page has the banner image
>>>> attached to it, though admittedly that is much worse, but its
>>>> along the same lines as what you are suggesting.
>>>
>>> right, there is no point in copying the very same image over and
>>> over again, so there is clearly a misunderstanding here.
>> Um... I'm confused... you said:
>> <snip>
>> I think we should be consistent in the way we manage the
>> attachments with confluence.
>> I rather have them attached to corresponding release page.
>> There are not that many to copy over anyway.
>> </snip>
>> I read this as you want to have the images of the box log attached
>> to the corresponding release page, meaning each page has a
>> separate copy of the same logo. I'm not sure how I could have
>> read it any differently :-(
>>> If we are going to use just one image (independent of the
>>> Geronimo version) on each release page then we definitively point
>>> to the same spot where we have the banners and logos on the repo.
>>> However, if we want to have for each release page a new Geronimo
>>> box with a matching version number, then we should to attach each
>>> of those images to the corresponding release page. This is the
>>> approach I thought we were talking about. If we go this way then
>>> we need to come up with a kind of standard way to create that
>>> image, today we are missing 1.0 and 1.1.1.
>> Right, I don't think we need to have an image that matches the
>> exact version. I think that 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc... all use the
>> 1.1 logo, 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc. all use the 2.0 logo, and so on.
>> Ask Hiram to whip up a 1.0 version, he said it was relatively easy.
>> I don't think we want to have separate images for 2.0-m5, 2.0-m6,
>> 2.0-m99, 2.0.1, etc, basically one image per major branch... else
>> we'd be asking Hiram to make new images all of the time ;-)
>> --jason
Re: web site update
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
just to be sure, what is the "logo" you are talking about?
I'm talking about the Geronimo boxes as in http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSITE/downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg, this is a unique image that is to be used only for the 1.1 release in this case. Each image would be used only once, I can't see why attaching that unique image file to a unique page is such a bad thing.
If the images are attached to confluence and we export the space, all the content gets exported. Hence we have a self contained copy of the web site with very limited external dependencies, that is for the actual downloads.
Even if we serve those images from svn we would still have to copy every single one from site/trunk/art to site/trunk/docs/images
One additional tiny benefit on the attachment approach is that the image served from confluence is approx 4 times smaller in size compared to the one we have on svn. I know, I did that to make the rendering a bit faster but my point is that we will still have to do some additional steps either way, not only svn cp.
Now, if we want to serve all the static content from all our the cwiki spaces directly from svn that's a different story.
Cheers!
Hernan
Jason Dillon wrote:
> On May 2, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> Um... why?
>>> That mens for each release we have a duplicate image? That is crazy
>> not really, wasn't your point to have a unique image for each release
>> page? maybe I didn't understand
>
> No, I want to have one box image in http://geronimo.apache.org/images/
> per version, and have each release page reference it (like a normal web
> page would do).
>
>
>>> man. Thats like saying that each page has the banner image attached
>>> to it, though admittedly that is much worse, but its along the same
>>> lines as what you are suggesting.
>>
>> right, there is no point in copying the very same image over and over
>> again, so there is clearly a misunderstanding here.
>
> Um... I'm confused... you said:
>
> <snip>
> I think we should be consistent in the way we manage the attachments
> with confluence.
> I rather have them attached to corresponding release page.
> There are not that many to copy over anyway.
> </snip>
>
> I read this as you want to have the images of the box log attached to
> the corresponding release page, meaning each page has a separate copy of
> the same logo. I'm not sure how I could have read it any differently :-(
>
>
>> If we are going to use just one image (independent of the Geronimo
>> version) on each release page then we definitively point to the same
>> spot where we have the banners and logos on the repo.
>> However, if we want to have for each release page a new Geronimo box
>> with a matching version number, then we should to attach each of those
>> images to the corresponding release page. This is the approach I
>> thought we were talking about. If we go this way then we need to come
>> up with a kind of standard way to create that image, today we are
>> missing 1.0 and 1.1.1.
>
> Right, I don't think we need to have an image that matches the exact
> version. I think that 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc... all use the 1.1 logo,
> 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc. all use the 2.0 logo, and so on.
>
> Ask Hiram to whip up a 1.0 version, he said it was relatively easy.
>
> I don't think we want to have separate images for 2.0-m5, 2.0-m6,
> 2.0-m99, 2.0.1, etc, basically one image per major branch... else we'd
> be asking Hiram to make new images all of the time ;-)
>
> --jason
>
>
Re: web site update
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On May 2, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> Um... why?
>> That mens for each release we have a duplicate image? That is crazy
> not really, wasn't your point to have a unique image for each
> release page? maybe I didn't understand
No, I want to have one box image in http://geronimo.apache.org/
images/ per version, and have each release page reference it (like a
normal web page would do).
>> man. Thats like saying that each page has the banner image
>> attached to it, though admittedly that is much worse, but its
>> along the same lines as what you are suggesting.
>
> right, there is no point in copying the very same image over and
> over again, so there is clearly a misunderstanding here.
Um... I'm confused... you said:
<snip>
I think we should be consistent in the way we manage the attachments
with confluence.
I rather have them attached to corresponding release page.
There are not that many to copy over anyway.
</snip>
I read this as you want to have the images of the box log attached to
the corresponding release page, meaning each page has a separate copy
of the same logo. I'm not sure how I could have read it any
differently :-(
> If we are going to use just one image (independent of the Geronimo
> version) on each release page then we definitively point to the
> same spot where we have the banners and logos on the repo.
> However, if we want to have for each release page a new Geronimo
> box with a matching version number, then we should to attach each
> of those images to the corresponding release page. This is the
> approach I thought we were talking about. If we go this way then we
> need to come up with a kind of standard way to create that image,
> today we are missing 1.0 and 1.1.1.
Right, I don't think we need to have an image that matches the exact
version. I think that 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc... all use the 1.1
logo, 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc. all use the 2.0 logo, and so on.
Ask Hiram to whip up a 1.0 version, he said it was relatively easy.
I don't think we want to have separate images for 2.0-m5, 2.0-m6, 2.0-
m99, 2.0.1, etc, basically one image per major branch... else we'd be
asking Hiram to make new images all of the time ;-)
--jason
Re: web site update
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
Jason Dillon wrote:
> Um... why?
>
> That mens for each release we have a duplicate image? That is crazy
not really, wasn't your point to have a unique image for each release page? maybe I didn't understand
> man. Thats like saying that each page has the banner image attached to
> it, though admittedly that is much worse, but its along the same lines
> as what you are suggesting.
right, there is no point in copying the very same image over and over again, so there is clearly a misunderstanding here.
If we are going to use just one image (independent of the Geronimo version) on each release page then we definitively point to the same spot where we have the banners and logos on the repo.
However, if we want to have for each release page a new Geronimo box with a matching version number, then we should to attach each of those images to the corresponding release page. This is the approach I thought we were talking about. If we go this way then we need to come up with a kind of standard way to create that image, today we are missing 1.0 and 1.1.1.
Cheers!
Hernan
>
> If you recall I originally setup this image to pull from a URL and not
> from an attachment... and I think it should make its way back to that.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On May 2, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>
>> I think we should be consistent in the way we manage the attachments
>> with confluence. I rather have them attached to corresponding release
>> page. There are not that many to copy over anyway.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Hernan
>>
>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> We should just add these to the static files we put into the site and
>>> use an http link here. Especially if we are going to have
>>> per-release pages, we don't want to duplicate those images over and
>>> over.
>>> Should just svn cp them from site/trunk/art into
>>> site/trunk/docs/images...
>>> --jason
>>> On May 2, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>>> yeah, that is the autoexported version, the one on confluence (the
>>>> source!?) looks fine. The autoexport plugin doesn't see attachment
>>>> updates so those files need to be deleted manually
>>>> I already opened a JIRA (INFRA-1226) to remove that file so I can
>>>> export manually the space and finally get that image updated.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>> Hernan
>>>>
>>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>> Hey, I just noticed that the box has some weird looking border on
>>>>> the top+left... any idea where that came from?
>>>>> --jason
>>>>> On May 1, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>>>>> Let's do it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll start moving some pages around. Do we have a "Geronimo Box"
>>>>>> without any specific version?
>>>>>> (http://geronimo.apache.org/downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>> Hernan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>>>>>> +1.
>>>>>>> -sachin
>>>>>>> On May 1, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'd still like to see things organized in the same way that
>>>>>>>> AcitveMQ does:
>
>
Re: web site update
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Um... why?
That mens for each release we have a duplicate image? That is crazy
man. Thats like saying that each page has the banner image attached
to it, though admittedly that is much worse, but its along the same
lines as what you are suggesting.
If you recall I originally setup this image to pull from a URL and
not from an attachment... and I think it should make its way back to
that.
--jason
On May 2, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> I think we should be consistent in the way we manage the
> attachments with confluence. I rather have them attached to
> corresponding release page. There are not that many to copy over
> anyway.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> We should just add these to the static files we put into the site
>> and use an http link here. Especially if we are going to have per-
>> release pages, we don't want to duplicate those images over and over.
>> Should just svn cp them from site/trunk/art into site/trunk/docs/
>> images...
>> --jason
>> On May 2, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>> yeah, that is the autoexported version, the one on confluence
>>> (the source!?) looks fine. The autoexport plugin doesn't see
>>> attachment updates so those files need to be deleted manually
>>> I already opened a JIRA (INFRA-1226) to remove that file so I can
>>> export manually the space and finally get that image updated.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> Hernan
>>>
>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>> Hey, I just noticed that the box has some weird looking border
>>>> on the top+left... any idea where that came from?
>>>> --jason
>>>> On May 1, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>>>> Let's do it!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll start moving some pages around. Do we have a "Geronimo
>>>>> Box" without any specific version? (http://geronimo.apache.org/
>>>>> downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>> Hernan
>>>>>
>>>>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>>>>> +1.
>>>>>> -sachin
>>>>>> On May 1, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>>> I'd still like to see things organized in the same way that
>>>>>>> AcitveMQ does:
Re: web site update
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
I think we should be consistent in the way we manage the attachments with confluence. I rather have them attached to corresponding release page. There are not that many to copy over anyway.
Cheers!
Hernan
Jason Dillon wrote:
> We should just add these to the static files we put into the site and
> use an http link here. Especially if we are going to have per-release
> pages, we don't want to duplicate those images over and over.
>
> Should just svn cp them from site/trunk/art into site/trunk/docs/images...
>
> --jason
>
>
> On May 2, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>
>> yeah, that is the autoexported version, the one on confluence (the
>> source!?) looks fine. The autoexport plugin doesn't see attachment
>> updates so those files need to be deleted manually
>> I already opened a JIRA (INFRA-1226) to remove that file so I can
>> export manually the space and finally get that image updated.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Hernan
>>
>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> Hey, I just noticed that the box has some weird looking border on the
>>> top+left... any idea where that came from?
>>> --jason
>>> On May 1, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>>> Let's do it!
>>>>
>>>> I'll start moving some pages around. Do we have a "Geronimo Box"
>>>> without any specific version?
>>>> (http://geronimo.apache.org/downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>> Hernan
>>>>
>>>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>>>> +1.
>>>>> -sachin
>>>>> On May 1, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>>> I'd still like to see things organized in the same way that
>>>>>> AcitveMQ does:
>
>
Re: web site update
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
We should just add these to the static files we put into the site and
use an http link here. Especially if we are going to have per-
release pages, we don't want to duplicate those images over and over.
Should just svn cp them from site/trunk/art into site/trunk/docs/
images...
--jason
On May 2, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> yeah, that is the autoexported version, the one on confluence (the
> source!?) looks fine. The autoexport plugin doesn't see attachment
> updates so those files need to be deleted manually
> I already opened a JIRA (INFRA-1226) to remove that file so I can
> export manually the space and finally get that image updated.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> Hey, I just noticed that the box has some weird looking border on
>> the top+left... any idea where that came from?
>> --jason
>> On May 1, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>> Let's do it!
>>>
>>> I'll start moving some pages around. Do we have a "Geronimo Box"
>>> without any specific version? (http://geronimo.apache.org/
>>> downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg)
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> Hernan
>>>
>>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>>> +1.
>>>> -sachin
>>>> On May 1, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>>> I'd still like to see things organized in the same way that
>>>>> AcitveMQ does:
Re: web site update
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
yeah, that is the autoexported version, the one on confluence (the source!?) looks fine. The autoexport plugin doesn't see attachment updates so those files need to be deleted manually
I already opened a JIRA (INFRA-1226) to remove that file so I can export manually the space and finally get that image updated.
Cheers!
Hernan
Jason Dillon wrote:
> Hey, I just noticed that the box has some weird looking border on the
> top+left... any idea where that came from?
>
> --jason
>
>
> On May 1, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>
>> Let's do it!
>>
>> I'll start moving some pages around. Do we have a "Geronimo Box"
>> without any specific version?
>> (http://geronimo.apache.org/downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg)
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Hernan
>>
>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>> +1.
>>> -sachin
>>> On May 1, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>> I'd still like to see things organized in the same way that AcitveMQ
>>>> does:
>
>
Re: web site update
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Hey, I just noticed that the box has some weird looking border on the
top+left... any idea where that came from?
--jason
On May 1, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Let's do it!
>
> I'll start moving some pages around. Do we have a "Geronimo Box"
> without any specific version? (http://geronimo.apache.org/
> downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg)
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
> Sachin Patel wrote:
>> +1.
>> -sachin
>> On May 1, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> I'd still like to see things organized in the same way that
>>> AcitveMQ does:
Re: web site update
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
Let's do it!
I'll start moving some pages around. Do we have a "Geronimo Box" without any specific version? (http://geronimo.apache.org/downloads.data/geronimo-box-1.1-small.jpg)
Cheers!
Hernan
Sachin Patel wrote:
> +1.
>
> -sachin
>
>
> On May 1, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> I'd still like to see things organized in the same way that AcitveMQ
>> does:
>
>
Re: web site update
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
+1.
-sachin
On May 1, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> I'd still like to see things organized in the same way that
> AcitveMQ does:
Re: web site update
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I'd still like to see things organized in the same way that AcitveMQ
does:
http://activemq.apache.org/download.html
A page per release, w/ jira list, etc.
--jason
On May 1, 2007, at 5:58 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> Looking at the download page (http://geronimo.apache.org/
> downloads.html) I was wondering if it actually wouldn't be better
> to have all the downloads for one specific release together.
> Today we have 2 sections, that is Binaries and Sources. I propose
> we get rid of those 2 sections and consolidate all the downloads
> grouped by release under the new section "Available Releases".
>
> If nobody disagree I will go ahead and make this change. New ideas
> also welcome!
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan