You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> on 2008/10/21 17:18:30 UTC
Re: Java doc is Geronimo 2.0.1 API
I built and checked in the server 2.1.3 javadocs. This seemed to be the
most expedient thing to do but there are some concerns:
#1 This is a huge amount of content to include in svn. I think infra
will not be happy with us.
#2 Given #1, I debated deleting the 2.0.1 javadoc. However, this won't
save anything given that svn must keep the history. It will save anyone
from getting all of the 2.0.1 content if they check out the site trunk.
What do you think, should we delete or keep 2.0.1 javadoc?
#3 Also given #1, it's probably a good thing that we haven't done this
for each release. Perhaps we should just do this once for each major
version? Thoughts?
#4 We had discussed using the maven generated site rather than
distributing this javadoc. However that also presents some problems:
- Currently it doesn't build for tags/2.1.3 (at least not for me).
- When it does build, the javadoc is per module/project. So rather than
a complete view of javadoc as with that just checked in you must first
navigate to the module of interest and then you can view the javadoc for
that module. This doesn't seem as useful to me.
I'm not sure if I want to take the time to investigate the mvn site
issues right now .... anybody else interested?
Joe
Ted Kirby wrote:
>>>From the home page, if I choose Javadoc as the first choice under the
> Development section of the left nav bar, I get 2.0.1 Javadoc. This
> should be updated to 2.1.3.
>
> Ted Kirby
>
Re: Java doc is Geronimo 2.0.1 API
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
I'm not really sure why the javadoc is checked into svn. I was just
following the same process used for 2.0.1. I suppose there is nothing
to prevent us from directly copying the content somewhere under
/www/geronimo.apache.org as we do for the maven generated sites. That
certainly sounds more workable and won't get us in trouble with infra
(BTW, I did get tapped on the shoulder over this ... it apparently
really slowed down the sync process which I supposed would still be an
issue with a direct copy as well).
Joe
Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Thanks Joe!
>
> I'm not sure why the javadoc is checked in into svn in the first
> place. Seems to me like that's unnecessary since we should always be
> able to regenerate the javadoc from source. So, I'm ok with removing
> any javadoc from svn but we should keep the javadoc for any major
> Geronimo version accessible online. I guess right now that should be
> 2.1.3 and 2.0.2.
>
> Jarek
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I built and checked in the server 2.1.3 javadocs. This seemed to be the
>> most expedient thing to do but there are some concerns:
>>
>> #1 This is a huge amount of content to include in svn. I think infra will
>> not be happy with us.
>> #2 Given #1, I debated deleting the 2.0.1 javadoc. However, this won't save
>> anything given that svn must keep the history. It will save anyone from
>> getting all of the 2.0.1 content if they check out the site trunk. What do
>> you think, should we delete or keep 2.0.1 javadoc?
>> #3 Also given #1, it's probably a good thing that we haven't done this for
>> each release. Perhaps we should just do this once for each major version?
>> Thoughts?
>> #4 We had discussed using the maven generated site rather than distributing
>> this javadoc. However that also presents some problems:
>> - Currently it doesn't build for tags/2.1.3 (at least not for me).
>> - When it does build, the javadoc is per module/project. So rather than a
>> complete view of javadoc as with that just checked in you must first
>> navigate to the module of interest and then you can view the javadoc for
>> that module. This doesn't seem as useful to me.
>>
>> I'm not sure if I want to take the time to investigate the mvn site issues
>> right now .... anybody else interested?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>> Ted Kirby wrote:
>>>> From the home page, if I choose Javadoc as the first choice under the
>>> Development section of the left nav bar, I get 2.0.1 Javadoc. This
>>> should be updated to 2.1.3.
>>>
>>> Ted Kirby
>>>
>>
>
Re: Java doc is Geronimo 2.0.1 API
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Joe!
I'm not sure why the javadoc is checked in into svn in the first
place. Seems to me like that's unnecessary since we should always be
able to regenerate the javadoc from source. So, I'm ok with removing
any javadoc from svn but we should keep the javadoc for any major
Geronimo version accessible online. I guess right now that should be
2.1.3 and 2.0.2.
Jarek
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I built and checked in the server 2.1.3 javadocs. This seemed to be the
> most expedient thing to do but there are some concerns:
>
> #1 This is a huge amount of content to include in svn. I think infra will
> not be happy with us.
> #2 Given #1, I debated deleting the 2.0.1 javadoc. However, this won't save
> anything given that svn must keep the history. It will save anyone from
> getting all of the 2.0.1 content if they check out the site trunk. What do
> you think, should we delete or keep 2.0.1 javadoc?
> #3 Also given #1, it's probably a good thing that we haven't done this for
> each release. Perhaps we should just do this once for each major version?
> Thoughts?
> #4 We had discussed using the maven generated site rather than distributing
> this javadoc. However that also presents some problems:
> - Currently it doesn't build for tags/2.1.3 (at least not for me).
> - When it does build, the javadoc is per module/project. So rather than a
> complete view of javadoc as with that just checked in you must first
> navigate to the module of interest and then you can view the javadoc for
> that module. This doesn't seem as useful to me.
>
> I'm not sure if I want to take the time to investigate the mvn site issues
> right now .... anybody else interested?
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> Ted Kirby wrote:
>>>
>>> From the home page, if I choose Javadoc as the first choice under the
>>
>> Development section of the left nav bar, I get 2.0.1 Javadoc. This
>> should be updated to 2.1.3.
>>
>> Ted Kirby
>>
>
>
Re: Java doc is Geronimo 2.0.1 API
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@gmail.com>.
Coolio :-)
--jason
On Oct 22, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> OK, I just created the page and did an export ... it might take an
> hour or so for it to become live.
>
> Joe
>
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> I don't think it implies that really... just only shows what
>> javadocs we do have, though we should probably keep one copy
>> (latest) for each major release.
>> --jason
>> On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I just hadn't gotten to it
>>> yet and I was also a little hesitant because that implies that we
>>> will have the javadoc for all releases. At the moment we only
>>> have 2.0.1 and 2.1.3.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>> I suggest we create an intermediate page in the wiki to list the
>>>> javadoc versions, and link to that from the sidenav instead of
>>>> going directly to 2.1.3.
>>>> --jason
>>>> On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>> I built and checked in the server 2.1.3 javadocs. This seemed
>>>>> to be the most expedient thing to do but there are some concerns:
>>>>>
>>>>> #1 This is a huge amount of content to include in svn. I think
>>>>> infra will not be happy with us.
>>>>> #2 Given #1, I debated deleting the 2.0.1 javadoc. However,
>>>>> this won't save anything given that svn must keep the history.
>>>>> It will save anyone from getting all of the 2.0.1 content if
>>>>> they check out the site trunk. What do you think, should we
>>>>> delete or keep 2.0.1 javadoc?
>>>>> #3 Also given #1, it's probably a good thing that we haven't
>>>>> done this for each release. Perhaps we should just do this once
>>>>> for each major version? Thoughts?
>>>>> #4 We had discussed using the maven generated site rather than
>>>>> distributing this javadoc. However that also presents some
>>>>> problems:
>>>>> - Currently it doesn't build for tags/2.1.3 (at least not for me).
>>>>> - When it does build, the javadoc is per module/project. So
>>>>> rather than a complete view of javadoc as with that just checked
>>>>> in you must first navigate to the module of interest and then
>>>>> you can view the javadoc for that module. This doesn't seem as
>>>>> useful to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if I want to take the time to investigate the mvn
>>>>> site issues right now .... anybody else interested?
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ted Kirby wrote:
>>>>>>> From the home page, if I choose Javadoc as the first choice
>>>>>>> under the
>>>>>> Development section of the left nav bar, I get 2.0.1 Javadoc.
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> should be updated to 2.1.3.
>>>>>> Ted Kirby
>>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Java doc is Geronimo 2.0.1 API
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
OK, I just created the page and did an export ... it might take an hour
or so for it to become live.
Joe
Jason Dillon wrote:
> I don't think it implies that really... just only shows what javadocs we
> do have, though we should probably keep one copy (latest) for each major
> release.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I just hadn't gotten to it yet
>> and I was also a little hesitant because that implies that we will
>> have the javadoc for all releases. At the moment we only have 2.0.1
>> and 2.1.3.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> I suggest we create an intermediate page in the wiki to list the
>>> javadoc versions, and link to that from the sidenav instead of going
>>> directly to 2.1.3.
>>> --jason
>>> On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>> I built and checked in the server 2.1.3 javadocs. This seemed to be
>>>> the most expedient thing to do but there are some concerns:
>>>>
>>>> #1 This is a huge amount of content to include in svn. I think
>>>> infra will not be happy with us.
>>>> #2 Given #1, I debated deleting the 2.0.1 javadoc. However, this
>>>> won't save anything given that svn must keep the history. It will
>>>> save anyone from getting all of the 2.0.1 content if they check out
>>>> the site trunk. What do you think, should we delete or keep 2.0.1
>>>> javadoc?
>>>> #3 Also given #1, it's probably a good thing that we haven't done
>>>> this for each release. Perhaps we should just do this once for each
>>>> major version? Thoughts?
>>>> #4 We had discussed using the maven generated site rather than
>>>> distributing this javadoc. However that also presents some problems:
>>>> - Currently it doesn't build for tags/2.1.3 (at least not for me).
>>>> - When it does build, the javadoc is per module/project. So rather
>>>> than a complete view of javadoc as with that just checked in you
>>>> must first navigate to the module of interest and then you can view
>>>> the javadoc for that module. This doesn't seem as useful to me.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if I want to take the time to investigate the mvn site
>>>> issues right now .... anybody else interested?
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ted Kirby wrote:
>>>>>> From the home page, if I choose Javadoc as the first choice under the
>>>>> Development section of the left nav bar, I get 2.0.1 Javadoc. This
>>>>> should be updated to 2.1.3.
>>>>> Ted Kirby
>>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Java doc is Geronimo 2.0.1 API
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@gmail.com>.
I don't think it implies that really... just only shows what javadocs
we do have, though we should probably keep one copy (latest) for each
major release.
--jason
On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I just hadn't gotten to it yet
> and I was also a little hesitant because that implies that we will
> have the javadoc for all releases. At the moment we only have 2.0.1
> and 2.1.3.
>
> Joe
>
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> I suggest we create an intermediate page in the wiki to list the
>> javadoc versions, and link to that from the sidenav instead of
>> going directly to 2.1.3.
>> --jason
>> On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> I built and checked in the server 2.1.3 javadocs. This seemed to
>>> be the most expedient thing to do but there are some concerns:
>>>
>>> #1 This is a huge amount of content to include in svn. I think
>>> infra will not be happy with us.
>>> #2 Given #1, I debated deleting the 2.0.1 javadoc. However, this
>>> won't save anything given that svn must keep the history. It will
>>> save anyone from getting all of the 2.0.1 content if they check
>>> out the site trunk. What do you think, should we delete or keep
>>> 2.0.1 javadoc?
>>> #3 Also given #1, it's probably a good thing that we haven't done
>>> this for each release. Perhaps we should just do this once for
>>> each major version? Thoughts?
>>> #4 We had discussed using the maven generated site rather than
>>> distributing this javadoc. However that also presents some
>>> problems:
>>> - Currently it doesn't build for tags/2.1.3 (at least not for me).
>>> - When it does build, the javadoc is per module/project. So
>>> rather than a complete view of javadoc as with that just checked
>>> in you must first navigate to the module of interest and then you
>>> can view the javadoc for that module. This doesn't seem as useful
>>> to me.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if I want to take the time to investigate the mvn
>>> site issues right now .... anybody else interested?
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ted Kirby wrote:
>>>>> From the home page, if I choose Javadoc as the first choice
>>>>> under the
>>>> Development section of the left nav bar, I get 2.0.1 Javadoc. This
>>>> should be updated to 2.1.3.
>>>> Ted Kirby
>>>
>
Re: Java doc is Geronimo 2.0.1 API
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I just hadn't gotten to it yet and
I was also a little hesitant because that implies that we will have the
javadoc for all releases. At the moment we only have 2.0.1 and 2.1.3.
Joe
Jason Dillon wrote:
> I suggest we create an intermediate page in the wiki to list the javadoc
> versions, and link to that from the sidenav instead of going directly to
> 2.1.3.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> I built and checked in the server 2.1.3 javadocs. This seemed to be
>> the most expedient thing to do but there are some concerns:
>>
>> #1 This is a huge amount of content to include in svn. I think infra
>> will not be happy with us.
>> #2 Given #1, I debated deleting the 2.0.1 javadoc. However, this
>> won't save anything given that svn must keep the history. It will
>> save anyone from getting all of the 2.0.1 content if they check out
>> the site trunk. What do you think, should we delete or keep 2.0.1
>> javadoc?
>> #3 Also given #1, it's probably a good thing that we haven't done this
>> for each release. Perhaps we should just do this once for each major
>> version? Thoughts?
>> #4 We had discussed using the maven generated site rather than
>> distributing this javadoc. However that also presents some problems:
>> - Currently it doesn't build for tags/2.1.3 (at least not for me).
>> - When it does build, the javadoc is per module/project. So rather
>> than a complete view of javadoc as with that just checked in you must
>> first navigate to the module of interest and then you can view the
>> javadoc for that module. This doesn't seem as useful to me.
>>
>> I'm not sure if I want to take the time to investigate the mvn site
>> issues right now .... anybody else interested?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>> Ted Kirby wrote:
>>>> From the home page, if I choose Javadoc as the first choice under the
>>> Development section of the left nav bar, I get 2.0.1 Javadoc. This
>>> should be updated to 2.1.3.
>>> Ted Kirby
>>
>
>
Re: Java doc is Geronimo 2.0.1 API
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@gmail.com>.
I suggest we create an intermediate page in the wiki to list the
javadoc versions, and link to that from the sidenav instead of going
directly to 2.1.3.
--jason
On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> I built and checked in the server 2.1.3 javadocs. This seemed to be
> the most expedient thing to do but there are some concerns:
>
> #1 This is a huge amount of content to include in svn. I think
> infra will not be happy with us.
> #2 Given #1, I debated deleting the 2.0.1 javadoc. However, this
> won't save anything given that svn must keep the history. It will
> save anyone from getting all of the 2.0.1 content if they check out
> the site trunk. What do you think, should we delete or keep 2.0.1
> javadoc?
> #3 Also given #1, it's probably a good thing that we haven't done
> this for each release. Perhaps we should just do this once for each
> major version? Thoughts?
> #4 We had discussed using the maven generated site rather than
> distributing this javadoc. However that also presents some problems:
> - Currently it doesn't build for tags/2.1.3 (at least not for me).
> - When it does build, the javadoc is per module/project. So rather
> than a complete view of javadoc as with that just checked in you
> must first navigate to the module of interest and then you can view
> the javadoc for that module. This doesn't seem as useful to me.
>
> I'm not sure if I want to take the time to investigate the mvn site
> issues right now .... anybody else interested?
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> Ted Kirby wrote:
>>> From the home page, if I choose Javadoc as the first choice under
>>> the
>> Development section of the left nav bar, I get 2.0.1 Javadoc. This
>> should be updated to 2.1.3.
>> Ted Kirby
>