You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de> on 2003/10/02 12:09:44 UTC
[BUG] Building docs failed
I tried to update our website, but building the docs fails:
BUILD FAILED
Z:\dev\workspace\xml-forrest\build\dist\shbat\forrest.build.xml:635: Java
return
ed: 1
Total time: 2 minutes 11 seconds
I'm using latest forrest. Is someone able to build the docs
with changing something or using a different forrest version?
Thanks
Carsten
Re: [BUG] Building docs failed
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
>>I see three solutions:
>>a) Revert the restructuring
>>b) Update the site
>>c) Do nothing
>>
>>What do you think?
>
>
> We have a dilemma, or is that a trilemma. Lets make it a quadrilemma ...
>
> d) One of us rolls back just our site.xml, or whatever it is
> that creates the menus, and commits just the generated changes.html
> Yeah, still risky but it is another option.
e) forego the entire, increasingly clumsy CVS deployment mechanism and
do an scp instead. The live copy of the website resides in
/www/cocoon.apache.org/, the CVS repo of cocoon-site resides in
/home/cvs/cocoon-site/, on the same physical server. The CVS deployment
mechanism has been invented to give infrastructure@ people the
possibility to easily rebuild the website(s) from the cvs modules upon a
server crash. Given the fact that both resources reside on the same
machine, I don't know how this would work.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
RE: [BUG] Building docs failed
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How about just updating the changes.html page? Do we really
> > > > need to do the whole site. There was a discussion about
> > > > not updating the website until 2.2 because the documentation
> > > > was re-arranged, thereby breaking URLs. Is that still so?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Difficult I guess. You must check out all files from before
> > rearrangement
> > > and take the latest version of those pages you want to be
> > uptodate. If these
> > > pages now have links to other pages, which are no longer there
> > where they
> > > were ... But I think we can't wait updating the website til
> > first version 2.2.
> >
> > Perhaps you missed the dot above. I mean "/2.1/changes.html"
> > only, not all "changed html" pages.
> >
> But the menu on the left has changed and I guess he refers to
> those links.
>
> The current situation really starts to suck...partial updates
> of the site are way too difficult, an update might break
> some links pointing to our site and we need an updated site
> now. Nice!
>
> I see three solutions:
> a) Revert the restructuring
> b) Update the site
> c) Do nothing
>
> What do you think?
We have a dilemma, or is that a trilemma. Lets make it a quadrilemma ...
d) One of us rolls back just our site.xml, or whatever it is
that creates the menus, and commits just the generated changes.html
Yeah, still risky but it is another option.
--David
RE: [BUG] Building docs failed
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> >
> > Seems too easy to be true. Hmmm, will try that!
>
> Good luck.
>
Great, it worked - changes are updated!
Thanks
Carsten
RE: [BUG] Building docs failed
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Great, we have a double-d here :)
>
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> >
> > Le Jeudi, 2 oct 2003, à 13:45 Europe/Zurich, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
> > > ...I see three solutions:
> > > a) Revert the restructuring
> > > b) Update the site
> > > c) Do nothing
> >
> > d) hack changes.html manually to include the new content with the old
> > menu?
> >
> Yes, thought about it as well, but what about the PDF?
I have used this d option on some sites. It works okay.
Nah, just copy over the newly generated PDF - there are no
menu links in there.
> David Crossley wrote:
> > We have a dilemma, or is that a trilemma. Lets make it a quadrilemma ...
> >
> > d) One of us rolls back just our site.xml, or whatever it is
> > that creates the menus, and commits just the generated changes.html
> > Yeah, still risky but it is another option.
>
> Seems too easy to be true. Hmmm, will try that!
Good luck.
--David
RE: [BUG] Building docs failed
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Great, we have a double-d here :)
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> Le Jeudi, 2 oct 2003, à 13:45 Europe/Zurich, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
> > ...I see three solutions:
> > a) Revert the restructuring
> > b) Update the site
> > c) Do nothing
>
> d) hack changes.html manually to include the new content with the old
> menu?
>
Yes, thought about it as well, but what about the PDF?
David Crossley wrote:
> We have a dilemma, or is that a trilemma. Lets make it a quadrilemma ...
>
> d) One of us rolls back just our site.xml, or whatever it is
> that creates the menus, and commits just the generated changes.html
> Yeah, still risky but it is another option.
Seems too easy to be true. Hmmm, will try that!
Carsten
Re: [BUG] Building docs failed
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le Jeudi, 2 oct 2003, à 13:45 Europe/Zurich, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
> ...I see three solutions:
> a) Revert the restructuring
> b) Update the site
> c) Do nothing
d) hack changes.html manually to include the new content with the old
menu?
-Bertrand
RE: [BUG] Building docs failed
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
David Crossley wrote:
> > >
> > > How about just updating the changes.html page? Do we really
> > > need to do the whole site. There was a discussion about
> > > not updating the website until 2.2 because the documentation
> > > was re-arranged, thereby breaking URLs. Is that still so?
> > >
> >
> > Difficult I guess. You must check out all files from before
> rearrangement
> > and take the latest version of those pages you want to be
> uptodate. If these
> > pages now have links to other pages, which are no longer there
> where they
> > were ... But I think we can't wait updating the website til
> first version 2.2.
>
> Perhaps you missed the dot above. I mean "/2.1/changes.html"
> only, not all "changed html" pages.
>
But the menu on the left has changed and I guess he refers to
those links.
The current situation really starts to suck...partial updates
of the site are way too difficult, an update might break
some links pointing to our site and we need an updated site
now. Nice!
I see three solutions:
a) Revert the restructuring
b) Update the site
c) Do nothing
What do you think?
Carsten
Re: [BUG] Building docs failed
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> >
> >>Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> >>
> >>>I could build it with Forrest 0.5 some days ago. There was a thread about
> >>>non-working Forrest, but WORKSFORME.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Great :)
> >>
> >>Could you please update the cocoon-site cvs module with the generated docs?
> >>I could then update our website from the cvs.
> >
> >
> > How about just updating the changes.html page? Do we really
> > need to do the whole site. There was a discussion about
> > not updating the website until 2.2 because the documentation
> > was re-arranged, thereby breaking URLs. Is that still so?
> >
> > --David
>
> Difficult I guess. You must check out all files from before rearrangement
> and take the latest version of those pages you want to be uptodate. If these
> pages now have links to other pages, which are no longer there where they
> were ... But I think we can't wait updating the website til first version 2.2.
Perhaps you missed the dot above. I mean "/2.1/changes.html"
only, not all "changed html" pages.
--David
Re: [BUG] Building docs failed
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jh...@virbus.de>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>>Joerg Heinicke wrote:
>>
>>>I could build it with Forrest 0.5 some days ago. There was a thread about
>>>non-working Forrest, but WORKSFORME.
>>>
>>
>>Great :)
>>
>>Could you please update the cocoon-site cvs module with the generated docs?
>>I could then update our website from the cvs.
>
>
> How about just updating the changes.html page? Do we really
> need to do the whole site. There was a discussion about
> not updating the website until 2.2 because the documentation
> was re-arranged, thereby breaking URLs. Is that still so?
>
> --David
Difficult I guess. You must check out all files from before rearrangement
and take the latest version of those pages you want to be uptodate. If these
pages now have links to other pages, which are no longer there where they
were ... But I think we can't wait updating the website til first version 2.2.
Joerg
--
System Development
VIRBUS AG
Fon +49(0)341-979-7419
Fax +49(0)341-979-7409
joerg.heinicke@virbus.de
www.virbus.de
RE: [BUG] Building docs failed
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> >
> > I could build it with Forrest 0.5 some days ago. There was a thread about
> > non-working Forrest, but WORKSFORME.
> >
> Great :)
>
> Could you please update the cocoon-site cvs module with the generated docs?
> I could then update our website from the cvs.
How about just updating the changes.html page? Do we really
need to do the whole site. There was a discussion about
not updating the website until 2.2 because the documentation
was re-arranged, thereby breaking URLs. Is that still so?
--David
RE: [BUG] Building docs failed
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
>
> I could build it with Forrest 0.5 some days ago. There was a thread about
> non-working Forrest, but WORKSFORME.
>
Great :)
Could you please update the cocoon-site cvs module with the generated docs?
I could then update our website from the cvs.
Carsten
Re: [BUG] Building docs failed
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jh...@virbus.de>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> I tried to update our website, but building the docs fails:
>
> BUILD FAILED
> Z:\dev\workspace\xml-forrest\build\dist\shbat\forrest.build.xml:635: Java
> return
> ed: 1
> Total time: 2 minutes 11 seconds
>
> I'm using latest forrest. Is someone able to build the docs
> with changing something or using a different forrest version?
>
> Thanks
> Carsten
I could build it with Forrest 0.5 some days ago. There was a thread about
non-working Forrest, but WORKSFORME.
Joerg
--
System Development
VIRBUS AG
Fon +49(0)341-979-7419
Fax +49(0)341-979-7409
joerg.heinicke@virbus.de
www.virbus.de