You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> on 2006/07/14 15:26:26 UTC
[VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
This time a real, official, standard vote.
Normally I wouldn't call a vote for a site update, but I just finished
committing more than *1000* files updated in our site/trunk repository.
As you can see from the "funny" comment about the 261 parts it changed
almost all the website.
I published an export of the updated site here:
http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/www/
http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/www/jspf/
Main changes:
1) Added jspf website
2) Changed the left column to include 2.3b documentation
3) Added all the latest documentation under 2.3 submenus (mainly updated
by Norman, more to be done)
4) Removed few very old files no more linked.
5) Updated mailets API and James javadoc to 2.3.0b3: the one previously
online was related to an old 3.0 trunk that has never really been
published (it had repositories in Mailet APIs). It was so bad to have
javadocs for an unsupported apis that I decided it was better to put
2.3b without not many discussions about putting 2.2.0 or anything else.
A +1 will mean I will leave the code in the current trunk and I will run
an update on minotaur to publish the changes.
If you cast a -1 please let me know if you are simply against the
publishing of the updated website or if you want me to revert the commit.
This is far from perfect, but I think it is better than before, so let's
publish this, and them we can tune it with further changes (maybe with
no need to vote at each one).
The commit log explain how I generated the files I committed.
Stefano
bago@apache.org wrote:
> Author: bago
> Date: Fri Jul 14 06:05:56 2006
> New Revision: 421896
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=421896&view=rev
> Log:
> Update full website to include jspf and 2.3 things.
> 1) "ant website" from james/server/trunk root.
> 2) replaced 2.2.0 with 2.3.0 in download.xml
> 3) "mvn site" from james/jspf/trunk root.
> 4) copied jspf/target/site to site root/jspf
> 5) fixcrlf on all the html files under www
>
>
> [This commit notification would consist of 261 parts,
> which exceeds the limit of 50 ones, so it was shortened to the summary.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini <vi...@praxis.it>.
+1
Vincenzo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by Søren Hilmer <sh...@widetrail.dk>.
+1
On Friday 14 July 2006 15:26, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> This time a real, official, standard vote.
>
> Normally I wouldn't call a vote for a site update, but I just finished
> committing more than *1000* files updated in our site/trunk repository.
>
> As you can see from the "funny" comment about the 261 parts it changed
> almost all the website.
>
> I published an export of the updated site here:
> http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/www/
> http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/www/jspf/
>
> Main changes:
> 1) Added jspf website
> 2) Changed the left column to include 2.3b documentation
> 3) Added all the latest documentation under 2.3 submenus (mainly updated
> by Norman, more to be done)
> 4) Removed few very old files no more linked.
> 5) Updated mailets API and James javadoc to 2.3.0b3: the one previously
> online was related to an old 3.0 trunk that has never really been
> published (it had repositories in Mailet APIs). It was so bad to have
> javadocs for an unsupported apis that I decided it was better to put
> 2.3b without not many discussions about putting 2.2.0 or anything else.
>
> A +1 will mean I will leave the code in the current trunk and I will run
> an update on minotaur to publish the changes.
>
> If you cast a -1 please let me know if you are simply against the
> publishing of the updated website or if you want me to revert the commit.
>
> This is far from perfect, but I think it is better than before, so let's
> publish this, and them we can tune it with further changes (maybe with
> no need to vote at each one).
>
> The commit log explain how I generated the files I committed.
>
> Stefano
>
> bago@apache.org wrote:
> > Author: bago
> > Date: Fri Jul 14 06:05:56 2006
> > New Revision: 421896
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=421896&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Update full website to include jspf and 2.3 things.
> > 1) "ant website" from james/server/trunk root.
> > 2) replaced 2.2.0 with 2.3.0 in download.xml
> > 3) "mvn site" from james/jspf/trunk root.
> > 4) copied jspf/target/site to site root/jspf
> > 5) fixcrlf on all the html files under www
> >
> >
> > [This commit notification would consist of 261 parts,
> > which exceeds the limit of 50 ones, so it was shortened to the summary.]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
--
Søren Hilmer, M.Sc., M.Crypt.
wideTrail Phone: +45 25481225
Pilevænget 41 Email: sh@widetrail.dk
DK-8961 Allingåbro Web: www.widetrail.dk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> We also want to change what Maven is generating. Almost all of its
>>> default reports should be turned off.
>> The Source Repository report is OK to show the URL, but all of the
>> content should be directed to http://www.apache.org/dev/#svn. We
>> don't want to maintain general SVN instructions.
>
>> Maven2 automatically generate this page:
>> http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/looktest/jspf/source-repository.html
>
> Yes, but http://www.apache.org/dev/#svn is the official content for the ASF. If you feel that there are some improvements that can be made, let's contribute them.
They are totally different approaches.
The apache page is a set of links most of them are useless to the james
user and only useful for us (james committers, or even only james pmc).
I still think that this page:
http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/site-20060723/server/source-repository.html
is much better than any page I can find in the apache website.
First of all this return the *real* paths to our repository while apache
site return only the root of the asf repository.
Btw I'm +1 to use the one provided by maven and -0 to link people to
apache links.
>>> The only Project Report we should keep is the JavaDocs, and that
>>> needs to be per-release level. The "Who we are"/Project Team is
>>> JAMES, not component specific.
>
>> I agree on the per-release level, but I think that project reports are
>> helpful and if we can generate them automatically and with few effort we
>> should publish them:
>
> Which project level reports? I listed:
>
>> Dependencies, Issue Tracking, Mailing Lists, License
>
> as useful. If you like the XRef, that's fine. Other reports are not useful, and some are promos for other people's code. I really don't feel like providing free advertising. Same for the Maven icon. I consider it obnoxious for tools to embed their advertising (spam) in their generated content.
>
> --- Noel
I think that clover, code duplication reports, test results, the
dependencies report, the taglist, the changelog, and much other are
useful to me.
Btw I don't care to publish them to our public site because I think they
would be useful only to james committers and much less to james users.
Imo the most important are javadocs and xref, so if you can't live with
further reports I'm ok to remove them from the public site.
I hope that we, sooner or later, will setup a continuos integration
server that will run james and generate the full site with full reports
supporting us in our developing cycles.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: James website update
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> I want to know how much bigger the Maven generated site is than the anakia generated site. Historically, Maven generated sites have been huge pigs. That doesn't appear to be the case here, but I do want to quantify the impact, since the generated site, including javadoc, is stored in Subversion.
>
> I asked for JAMES sans jSPF because we didn't have an anakia version of the jSPF site.
Maven uses doxia to generate html from xdocs. It is not so different
from what anakia does. In fact, the generated html are almost the same
size (+/- 10%).
The different in size for the total website is mainly due to javadocs
and xrefs, and to any additional page/report we decide to include.
Furthermore my latest skin include a total of 10KB of css and 100KB of
images, but this can be optimized to be 5KB removing unused css
declaration and removing unused images the size of the image folder
should not be more than 15KB (+ 6-7 kb for each project logo)
Currently I have to put a copy of css and images folders inside each
subproject folder, maybe there is a workaround for this (or most
probably a good way to handle common look between multiple project sites)
If I will find the time I'll try to create a maven2 skin package for
"james-skin", but this is not so important for the final result.
Currently my goal is to revamp all of the james sites (even mime4j,
jSieve, and maybe create a stub for Postage) and create instruction and
a proposal to replace the current site.
My first test of the above setup, excluding all project reports and
including main james site, server, jspf, mime4j, jsieve (a single page
for this) is 2.2MB (where 110KB * 5 sites => 550KB are css/images).
I did much more than I expected to do on the website issue (was not in
my goals) so I would like at least to solve this issue before my
holidays (7-25 august), otherwise I'll forgot what I was doing, and
september I'm always more busy.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: James website update
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > What is the difference in size between the anakia generated site
> and the maven 2 generated site? Only for JAMES, not counting jSPF.
> Do you want to know the site of the generated html page or the site used
> by the whole site once generated?
I want to know how much bigger the Maven generated site is than the anakia generated site. Historically, Maven generated sites have been huge pigs. That doesn't appear to be the case here, but I do want to quantify the impact, since the generated site, including javadoc, is stored in Subversion.
I asked for JAMES sans jSPF because we didn't have an anakia version of the jSPF site.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Looks good, as we've discussed. What is the difference in size between the anakia generated site and the maven 2 generated site? Only for JAMES, not counting jSPF.
Do you want to know the site of the generated html page or the site used
by the whole site once generated?
Excluding reports and javadocs/xref the 3 sites together (James + Server
+ JSPF) are 1.8MB (I'm just uploading a further test and is 1.8MB).
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Serge Knystautas wrote:
> On 7/23/06, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
>> I think that clover, code duplication reports, test results, the
>> dependencies report, the taglist, the changelog, and much other are
>> useful to me.
>> Btw I don't care to publish them to our public site because I think they
>> would be useful only to james committers and much less to james users.
>
> I would not want to draw a line so strong. If someone wants to look
> at some report and make a change, or is running their own branch of
> the code and wants the changelog and dependency report, more power to
> them.
Maybe it is better that I explain my sentence.
I would like to add A LOT of reports to our official site. If they are
automatically generated by Maven I don't see drawbacks in having more
reports ("they have to be mantained" would be the drawback for
non-automatic reports).
Btw, Noel is against this, so I said "I don't care to publish them": I
meant that I can live even without publishing them.
Having a pom.xml in the source distribution is already a good step for
any user that know maven and can create the reports in an easy way.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: svn repository for generated site
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> What is the rationale behind the decision to keep the generated-site
>>> under our version control?
>> Management and particularly disaster recovery by the infrastructure team,
>> which cannot and will not rebuild the site for every project using
various
>> tools, nor wants to expend the resources (time and computing) while
trying
>> to recover.
> Ok. It makes sense, even if it would be better to have a simple backup
> than a versioned repository for this.
The process will evolve again, I'm sure. The current process dates back to
when we had a single server, and only the one critical copy of the site
contents.
> > The top culprits in our now 111MB site
> You found that 111MB was not right.
Yes, I posted the corrected informaton last night. The 111MB includes 70MB
of SVN overhead. :-)
> It was 42MB and now that I removed the trash from the previous version
> we are to
> 29MB = 1.7MB (website pages) +
> 2.3MB (RFC docs) +
> 15.5MB (javadocs) +
> 9.5MB (cross-references)
Yes, that's not so bad. The only apparent Maven "overhead" is that we now
have the cross-references, which can be useful. So I'm fairly pleased.
Nice job!
--- Noel
Re: svn repository for generated site
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> What is the rationale behind the decision to keep the generated-site
>> under our version control?
>
> Management and particularly disaster recovery by the infrastructure team,
> which cannot and will not rebuild the site for every project using various
> tools, nor wants to expend the resources (time and computing) while trying
> to recover.
Ok. It makes sense, even if it would be better to have a simple backup
than a versioned repository for this.
>> I agree that keeping the versioning for generated artifacts is a waste
>> of space in Subversion.
>
> The top culprits in our now 111MB site (up from 18MB for JAMES v2.1, of
> which 11MB had been javadocs) are:
>
> 111M /www/james.apache.org
> 35M /www/james.apache.org/javadocs
> 29M /www/james.apache.org/javadocs/org/apache/james
> 2.5M /www/james.apache.org/javadocs/org/apache/mailet
> 61M /www/james.apache.org/server
> 4.4M /www/james.apache.org/server/xref-test
> 4.2M /www/james.apache.org/server/xref-test/org/apache/james
> 35M /www/james.apache.org/server/apidocs
> 29M /www/james.apache.org/server/apidocs/org/apache/james
> 2.4M /www/james.apache.org/server/apidocs/org/apache/mailet
> 18M /www/james.apache.org/server/xref
> 17M /www/james.apache.org/server/xref/org/apache/james
> 7.7M /www/james.apache.org/jspf
> 4.2M /www/james.apache.org/jspf/apidocs
> 3.6M /www/james.apache.org/jspf/apidocs/org/apache/james
> 1.8M /www/james.apache.org/jspf/xref
> 1.7M /www/james.apache.org/jspf/xref/org/apache/james
> 2.1M /www/james.apache.org/mailet
> 1.6M /www/james.apache.org/mailet/org/apache/mailet
> 5.0M /www/james.apache.org/rfclist
>
> The javadocs for JAMES by itself are 3x than they had been in v2.1, and the
> total size of the site is now roughly 6x what it had been. Now we may want
> all of this, but let's not discount the explosion in space that just
> occurred. Certainly not "just some extra (hundreds?) of HTML pages." The
> entire site used to be roughly:
>
> 18MB = 3MB + 5MB (RFC docs) + 11MB (javadocs).
>
> Now it is roughly
>
> 111MB = 10MB + 5MB (RFC docs) + 76MB (javadocs) + 20MB (cross-references)
You found that 111MB was not right. It was 42MB and now that I removed
the trash from the previous version we are to 29MB:
29MB = 1.7MB (website pages) + 2.3MB (RFC docs) + 15.5MB (javadocs) +
9.5MB (cross-references)
I just saw that the rfcdocs are in the wrong place. I have to fix it.
> Yes, clearly the site itself is relatively tiny compared to the generated
> artifacts.
>
> But other than cross-references, there doesn't appear to be anything here
> that would indicate that Maven is the cause of major bloat.
>
> By the way, the javadocs linked as "James 2.3B javadocs" are the javadocs
> for trunk (v3), and the ones at http://james.apache.org/javadocs/ (which
> does not appear to be linked from anywhere) are for v2.3b3. And we have
> three copies of the mailet javadocs: javadocs/, mailet/ and server/apidocs/.
>
> --- Noel
I cleaned the old javadocs and the trunk docs is a known issue: I'll
work to fix it later. Btw thank you for the feedback!
Stefano
RE: svn repository for generated site
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > We'll pare things down and compare again, but the maven overhead
> > is almost entirely in the xref report.
> It cannot be considered a maven overhead.
I could have put "overhead" in quotes. The point was that there does not
appear to be much actual overhead, and that's a good thing.
--- Noel
Re: svn repository for generated site
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> The top culprits in our now 111MB site (up from 18MB for JAMES v2.1
>
> Looks like there is almost 70MB of overhead from the svn checkout! So we
> are about 42MB for an export, and that's including multiple versions of
> javadocs. We'll pare things down and compare again, but the maven overhead
> is almost entirely in the xref report.
It cannot be considered a maven overhead. In fact xref reports are not
even a default for Maven. I added a plugin to generate them.
Maven did not add overhead to our site generation. m2 really simplify
the usage of third party reporting plugins that I think many of them
should be used.
Adding a lot of configuration for third party tools and their
dependencies in an ant based project is a pita and I would avoid it at
all costs, but m2 is really great solving this issue. You have 2
options: learn how to configure/use/automate each tool you want to use
(javadoc, xref, pmd, checkstyle, clover, cobertura, xdoclet and so on)
or learn maven2.
Stefano
RE: svn repository for generated site
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> The top culprits in our now 111MB site (up from 18MB for JAMES v2.1
Looks like there is almost 70MB of overhead from the svn checkout! So we
are about 42MB for an export, and that's including multiple versions of
javadocs. We'll pare things down and compare again, but the maven overhead
is almost entirely in the xref report.
--- Noel
RE: svn repository for generated site
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> What is the rationale behind the decision to keep the generated-site
> under our version control?
Management and particularly disaster recovery by the infrastructure team,
which cannot and will not rebuild the site for every project using various
tools, nor wants to expend the resources (time and computing) while trying
to recover.
> I agree that keeping the versioning for generated artifacts is a waste
> of space in Subversion.
The top culprits in our now 111MB site (up from 18MB for JAMES v2.1, of
which 11MB had been javadocs) are:
111M /www/james.apache.org
35M /www/james.apache.org/javadocs
29M /www/james.apache.org/javadocs/org/apache/james
2.5M /www/james.apache.org/javadocs/org/apache/mailet
61M /www/james.apache.org/server
4.4M /www/james.apache.org/server/xref-test
4.2M /www/james.apache.org/server/xref-test/org/apache/james
35M /www/james.apache.org/server/apidocs
29M /www/james.apache.org/server/apidocs/org/apache/james
2.4M /www/james.apache.org/server/apidocs/org/apache/mailet
18M /www/james.apache.org/server/xref
17M /www/james.apache.org/server/xref/org/apache/james
7.7M /www/james.apache.org/jspf
4.2M /www/james.apache.org/jspf/apidocs
3.6M /www/james.apache.org/jspf/apidocs/org/apache/james
1.8M /www/james.apache.org/jspf/xref
1.7M /www/james.apache.org/jspf/xref/org/apache/james
2.1M /www/james.apache.org/mailet
1.6M /www/james.apache.org/mailet/org/apache/mailet
5.0M /www/james.apache.org/rfclist
The javadocs for JAMES by itself are 3x than they had been in v2.1, and the
total size of the site is now roughly 6x what it had been. Now we may want
all of this, but let's not discount the explosion in space that just
occurred. Certainly not "just some extra (hundreds?) of HTML pages." The
entire site used to be roughly:
18MB = 3MB + 5MB (RFC docs) + 11MB (javadocs).
Now it is roughly
111MB = 10MB + 5MB (RFC docs) + 76MB (javadocs) + 20MB (cross-references)
Yes, clearly the site itself is relatively tiny compared to the generated
artifacts.
But other than cross-references, there doesn't appear to be anything here
that would indicate that Maven is the cause of major bloat.
By the way, the javadocs linked as "James 2.3B javadocs" are the javadocs
for trunk (v3), and the ones at http://james.apache.org/javadocs/ (which
does not appear to be linked from anywhere) are for v2.3b3. And we have
three copies of the mailet javadocs: javadocs/, mailet/ and server/apidocs/.
--- Noel
svn repository for generated site
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
What is the rationale behind the decision to keep the generated-site
under our version control?
It seems a waste of resources and a superflous step since now we can
generate the whole site (project + products sites) using simple "mvn site"s.
I agree that keeping the versioning for generated artifacts is a waste
of space in Subversion...
Stefano
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> I would like to add A LOT of reports to our official site. If they are
>> automatically generated by Maven I don't see drawbacks in having more
>> reports ("they have to be mantained" would be the drawback for
>> non-automatic reports).
>
> Superfluous bloat in SVN would be an issue. All of these generated
> artifacts take up space in Subversion. But if the reports actually have
> some value ...
>
> --- Noel
Re: svn repository for generated site
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Serge Knystautas wrote:
> I disagree with Noel on the resource concern. AFAIK, we're talking
> about just some extra (hundreds?) of HTML pages. Usually everything
> on an open source site is dwarfed by the JavaDocs (and prettied source
> if published to the website).
Reports having 1 html per class are the most expensive:
Clover or Cobertura reports are similar reports, all the other are much
less expensive in term of disk space.
The official site have been updated, we have now a 42MB website.
I don't know if versioning 42MB of htmls is an issue to apache svn
repository. Maybe we should ask to someone that have an overview of what
the apache repository is and how much is a problem if we "waste"
resources for our "website" history.
Stefano
Re: svn repository for generated site
Posted by Serge Knystautas <sk...@gmail.com>.
On 7/26/06, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> What is the rationale behind the decision to keep the generated-site
> under our version control?
>
> It seems a waste of resources and a superflous step since now we can
> generate the whole site (project + products sites) using simple "mvn site"s.
>
> I agree that keeping the versioning for generated artifacts is a waste
> of space in Subversion...
Some possible reasons (I'm sure there are others)
- More certainty on what was on the site when
- Let's a non-James developer restore all Apache project sites on a new server
I disagree with Noel on the resource concern. AFAIK, we're talking
about just some extra (hundreds?) of HTML pages. Usually everything
on an open source site is dwarfed by the JavaDocs (and prettied source
if published to the website).
--
Serge Knystautas
Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. sergek@lokitech.com
RE: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> I would like to add A LOT of reports to our official site. If they are
> automatically generated by Maven I don't see drawbacks in having more
> reports ("they have to be mantained" would be the drawback for
> non-automatic reports).
Superfluous bloat in SVN would be an issue. All of these generated
artifacts take up space in Subversion. But if the reports actually have
some value ...
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by Serge Knystautas <sk...@gmail.com>.
On 7/25/06, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> I would like to add A LOT of reports to our official site. If they are
> automatically generated by Maven I don't see drawbacks in having more
> reports ("they have to be mantained" would be the drawback for
> non-automatic reports).
Agreed.
--
Serge Knystautas
Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. sergek@lokitech.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in
/james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by Norman Maurer <nm...@byteaction.de>.
Am Dienstag, den 25.07.2006, 11:02 -0400 schrieb Serge Knystautas:
> On 7/25/06, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> > I would like to add A LOT of reports to our official site. If they are
> > automatically generated by Maven I don't see drawbacks in having more
> > reports ("they have to be mantained" would be the drawback for
> > non-automatic reports).
>
> Agreed.
>
I think the most reports are very usefull.. I was scared when lookin at
the CPD report and see how much code duplication we have :-(
bye
Norman
Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by Serge Knystautas <sk...@gmail.com>.
On 7/23/06, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> I think that clover, code duplication reports, test results, the
> dependencies report, the taglist, the changelog, and much other are
> useful to me.
> Btw I don't care to publish them to our public site because I think they
> would be useful only to james committers and much less to james users.
I would not want to draw a line so strong. If someone wants to look
at some report and make a change, or is running their own branch of
the code and wants the changelog and dependency report, more power to
them.
--
Serge Knystautas
Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. sergek@lokitech.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Stefano wrote:
> Sunny day and I'm sick, so I took some time to look at maven2 generation
> and css.
Sorry to hear it.
> I created a css for maven2 generated site, that is different from James
> current style but I think it is something in the middle between Maven2
> style and current James style.
Looks good, as we've discussed. What is the difference in size between the anakia generated site and the maven 2 generated site? Only for JAMES, not counting jSPF.
> > We want a main site, plus project specific content, and release
> > specific content within project specific content.
> I agree.
> I think we can create a maven2 project for our main site using only the
> content that is not project specific. As I already tried the James site
> generation using maven2 this should not be a big problem.
OK.
> > We also want to change what Maven is generating. Almost all of its
> > default reports should be turned off.
>
> The Source Repository report is OK to show the URL, but all of the
> content should be directed to http://www.apache.org/dev/#svn. We
> don't want to maintain general SVN instructions.
> Maven2 automatically generate this page:
> http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/looktest/jspf/source-repository.html
Yes, but http://www.apache.org/dev/#svn is the official content for the ASF. If you feel that there are some improvements that can be made, let's contribute them.
> > The only Project Report we should keep is the JavaDocs, and that
> > needs to be per-release level. The "Who we are"/Project Team is
> > JAMES, not component specific.
> I agree on the per-release level, but I think that project reports are
> helpful and if we can generate them automatically and with few effort we
> should publish them:
Which project level reports? I listed:
> Dependencies, Issue Tracking, Mailing Lists, License
as useful. If you like the XRef, that's fine. Other reports are not useful, and some are promos for other people's code. I really don't feel like providing free advertising. Same for the Maven icon. I consider it obnoxious for tools to embed their advertising (spam) in their generated content.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Done: Added it as the first link of "Related Projects". I don't like
>> this too much but it is better than nothing, and we should find a
>> consistent way to publish all of the projects (mime4j, postage, jsieve..)
>
> Agreed on all counts. Neither one of us likes the current situation, but agree that doing this is better than not.
Sunny day and I'm sick, so I took some time to look at maven2 generation
and css.
I created a css for maven2 generated site, that is different from James
current style but I think it is something in the middle between Maven2
style and current James style.
Currently I'm happy with the result:
http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/looktest/
http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/looktest/jspf/
For that test I'm generating both James server and James jspf via
maven2, and imo this is the way to go.
About the look I'm happy with it and I think this is consistent and
looks better than both default maven and our current site.
About the structure this currently improves only the multisite
navigation (via horizontabl bar for projects) but this is the issue
where maven2 can be of help and that deserve more work.
>> About the look (skin) jSPF site is generated throught maven2. Maven2 has
>> various level of customizability for its site generation tool.
>
>> What we could try to do is to create a maven2 skin that somewhat
>> remember the current apache website and then use it for the main
>> website and for james projects.
>
> We've got to do something. We want a main site, plus project specific content, and release specific content within project specific content. We also want to change what Maven is generating. Almost all of its default reports should be turned off. Of the Project Documentation set perhaps keep:
I agree.
I think we can create a maven2 project for our main site using only the
content that is not project specific. As I already tried the James site
generation using maven2 this should not be a big problem.
Maven should be able to automatically find the multiple projects and
keep consistency in layouts between them.
I have to study a bit more about this and as always I don't know if and
when I'll find the time, but this seems the right way.
> Dependencies, Issue Tracking, Mailing Lists, License
>
> The Source Repository report is OK to show the URL, but all of the content should be directed to http://www.apache.org/dev/#svn. We don't want to maintain general SVN instructions.
Maven2 automatically generate this page:
http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/looktest/jspf/source-repository.html
Imho from a user perspective this page is better than
http://www.apache.org/dev/#svn
Both way we don't have to mantain it, because maven2 generate it
automatically.
> The only Project Report we should keep is the JavaDocs, and that needs to be per-release level. The "Who we are"/Project Team is JAMES, not component specific.
I agree on the per-release level, but I think that project reports are
helpful and if we can generate them automatically and with few effort we
should publish them:
As an example I find very useful the "XRef" as an additional reference
when I use libraries: most time Javadocs are not enough but I don't want
to download source distribution just to check a method source.
Most of the other reports are more oriented to us: surfire (test
reports), tag list, pmd, clover, etc..
I think it is useful to keep them but I don't care as much as for xref.
All of this last reports would be a must if we'll ever plan to publish
updated references for projects "trunks".
> And I most definitely do not want a "Built by Maven" logo on the page.
I'm -0 about this: if we use maven we should give credits to them.
Btw it can be easily hidden via css.
> I'd be willing to see what such an overall site would look like, but want to see it before we decide to keep it.
I think the final goal will be much more similar to:
http://directory.apache.org/
They have ApacheDS, MINA and Naming as project categories, we would have
Server, jSPF, Postage, Mime4J, jSieve, and so on.
I think that directory m2 "sources" will be helpful when trying to
achieve the same goal.
> Regardless of whether we use the same or different tools to build the site parts, we can merge them via svn (e.g., james/ would come from site/, james/server would come from server/, jspf/ would come from jspf/, etc.). I'd prefer a common look, regardless of which approach we take.
Please let me know what do you think of my test look.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in
/james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by Norman Maurer <nm...@byteaction.de>.
Am Sonntag, den 16.07.2006, 18:57 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >> Done: Added it as the first link of "Related Projects". I don't like
> >> this too much but it is better than nothing, and we should find a
> >> consistent way to publish all of the projects (mime4j, postage, jsieve..)
> >
> > Agreed on all counts. Neither one of us likes the current situation, but agree that doing this is better than not.
>
> Sunny day and I'm sick, so I took some time to look at maven2 generation
> and css.
First i hope you feel better tomorrow..
>
> I created a css for maven2 generated site, that is different from James
> current style but I think it is something in the middle between Maven2
> style and current James style.
>
> Currently I'm happy with the result:
> http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/looktest/
> http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/looktest/jspf/
>
> For that test I'm generating both James server and James jspf via
> maven2, and imo this is the way to go.
>
> About the look I'm happy with it and I think this is consistent and
> looks better than both default maven and our current site.
I think the look is good (even i like the old james site look more).. I
also agree that we should build the site with maven2 with one css so we
get a consistent look over all the projects.
>
> About the structure this currently improves only the multisite
> navigation (via horizontabl bar for projects) but this is the issue
> where maven2 can be of help and that deserve more work.
>
> >> About the look (skin) jSPF site is generated throught maven2. Maven2 has
> >> various level of customizability for its site generation tool.
> >
> >> What we could try to do is to create a maven2 skin that somewhat
> >> remember the current apache website and then use it for the main
> >> website and for james projects.
> >
> > We've got to do something. We want a main site, plus project specific content, and release specific content within project specific content. We also want to change what Maven is generating. Almost all of its default reports should be turned off. Of the Project Documentation set perhaps keep:
>
> I agree.
> I think we can create a maven2 project for our main site using only the
> content that is not project specific. As I already tried the James site
> generation using maven2 this should not be a big problem.
> Maven should be able to automatically find the multiple projects and
> keep consistency in layouts between them.
> I have to study a bit more about this and as always I don't know if and
> when I'll find the time, but this seems the right way.
Thx for put your hands on this. It whould be cool if you share some docs
or links to see how you did it.
>
> > Dependencies, Issue Tracking, Mailing Lists, License
> >
> > The Source Repository report is OK to show the URL, but all of the content should be directed to http://www.apache.org/dev/#svn. We don't want to maintain general SVN instructions.
>
> Maven2 automatically generate this page:
> http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/looktest/jspf/source-repository.html
>
> Imho from a user perspective this page is better than
> http://www.apache.org/dev/#svn
Agree.. better structure and more usefull.
>
> Both way we don't have to mantain it, because maven2 generate it
> automatically.
>
> > The only Project Report we should keep is the JavaDocs, and that needs to be per-release level. The "Who we are"/Project Team is JAMES, not component specific.
>
> I agree on the per-release level, but I think that project reports are
> helpful and if we can generate them automatically and with few effort we
> should publish them:
>
> As an example I find very useful the "XRef" as an additional reference
> when I use libraries: most time Javadocs are not enough but I don't want
> to download source distribution just to check a method source.
>
> Most of the other reports are more oriented to us: surfire (test
> reports), tag list, pmd, clover, etc..
>
> I think it is useful to keep them but I don't care as much as for xref.
>
> All of this last reports would be a must if we'll ever plan to publish
> updated references for projects "trunks".
>
> > And I most definitely do not want a "Built by Maven" logo on the page.
>
> I'm -0 about this: if we use maven we should give credits to them.
> Btw it can be easily hidden via css.
Why you don't want this? I think if we use it me "should" give credit..
Its nothing more then "fair".
>
> > I'd be willing to see what such an overall site would look like, but want to see it before we decide to keep it.
>
> I think the final goal will be much more similar to:
> http://directory.apache.org/
> They have ApacheDS, MINA and Naming as project categories, we would have
> Server, jSPF, Postage, Mime4J, jSieve, and so on.
>
I agree.. The site looks more clear and buisness like.
> I think that directory m2 "sources" will be helpful when trying to
> achieve the same goal.
>
> > Regardless of whether we use the same or different tools to build the site parts, we can merge them via svn (e.g., james/ would come from site/, james/server would come from server/, jspf/ would come from jspf/, etc.). I'd prefer a common look, regardless of which approach we take.
>
> Please let me know what do you think of my test look.
Just did ;-)
>
> Stefano
bye
Norman
RE: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Would you please update the stylesheet to use the ApacheCon US 2006 logo
> DONE (already updated in my home "live" export)
:)
> Fixed to say "betas" and removed references to specific betas
Looks good. We can direct them to http://people.apache.org/dist/james for the beta release. And we should plan to reorganize for the v2.3 release so that we have james/server/{source, binaries}, making room for jspf/ to be a peer of server/.
> > We should add jSPF to the navigation tree for the JAMES site,
> > although I really dislike that we have two totally different looks.
> Done: Added it as the first link of "Related Projects". I don't like
> this too much but it is better than nothing, and we should find a
> consistent way to publish all of the projects (mime4j, postage, jsieve..)
Agreed on all counts. Neither one of us likes the current situation, but agree that doing this is better than not.
> About the look (skin) jSPF site is generated throught maven2. Maven2 has
> various level of customizability for its site generation tool.
> What we could try to do is to create a maven2 skin that somewhat
> remember the current apache website and then use it for the main
> website and for james projects.
We've got to do something. We want a main site, plus project specific content, and release specific content within project specific content. We also want to change what Maven is generating. Almost all of its default reports should be turned off. Of the Project Documentation set perhaps keep:
Dependencies, Issue Tracking, Mailing Lists, License
The Source Repository report is OK to show the URL, but all of the content should be directed to http://www.apache.org/dev/#svn. We don't want to maintain general SVN instructions.
The only Project Report we should keep is the JavaDocs, and that needs to be per-release level. The "Who we are"/Project Team is JAMES, not component specific.
And I most definitely do not want a "Built by Maven" logo on the page.
I'd be willing to see what such an overall site would look like, but want to see it before we decide to keep it.
Regardless of whether we use the same or different tools to build the site parts, we can merge them via svn (e.g., james/ would come from site/, james/server would come from server/, jspf/ would come from jspf/, etc.). I'd prefer a common look, regardless of which approach we take.
>>> 2) replaced 2.2.0 with 2.3.0 in download.xml
>> Whoops ... this and the related text changes on the main page
>> are premature, until we do release JAMES v2.3.
> Fixed.
:-)
On the jSPF site, cvs.apache.org should be people.apache.org.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Several changes:
>
> Would you please update the stylesheet to use the ApacheCon US 2006 logo instead of the one from last year? And, yes, you're about to generate a huge number of changed pages.
DONE (already updated in my home "live" export).
You can see that the new banner is larger than the one. It is not a big
issue by now, maybe we should revert to 2 column style.
> Also, the beta is 2.3.0b3, not b1.
Fixed to say "betas" and removed references to specific betas, otherwise
this would be outdated in a week ;-)
> We should add jSPF to the navigation tree for the JAMES site, although I really dislike that we have two totally different looks.
Done: Added it as the first link of "Related Projects". I don't like
this too much but it is better than nothing, and we should find a
consistent way to publish all of the projects (mime4j, postage, jsieve..)
---- I Don't think I will have the time for this soon, btw -----------
About the look (skin) jSPF site is generated throught maven2. Maven2 has
various level of customizability for its site generation tool.
The first is to use one of the default skins:
Stylus: http://maven.apache.org/
Default: http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/www/jspf/
The second is to create a simple skin that make only use of css and images.
The third is to create a skin module to alter the generation of the website.
I already excluse the last because it would take longer than our
possibilities.
What we could try to do is to create a maven2 skin that somewhat
remember the current apache website and then use it for the main website
and for james projects.
It is really easy to generate james-server website using maven2, so this
option should be the easiest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 2) replaced 2.2.0 with 2.3.0 in download.xml
>
> Whoops ... this and the related text changes on the main page are premature, until we do release JAMES v2.3. This is the only thing that I feel should be reverted ... FOR NOW. Everything else is a go. I'd really like to publish the site, with all of the JAMES v2.3 beta content; we just can't say that v2.3 is released until it is.
Fixed.
Stefano
PS: if no one will raise his voice I'll wait the 72 hours for this vote
to expire and run an "svn update" on minotaur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> 2) replaced 2.2.0 with 2.3.0 in download.xml
>
> Whoops ... this and the related text changes on the main page are premature, until we do release JAMES v2.3. This is the only thing that I feel should be reverted ... FOR NOW. Everything else is a go. I'd really like to publish the site, with all of the JAMES v2.3 beta content; we just can't say that v2.3 is released until it is.
I didn't noticed there was updated 2.3.0 references even in index.html.
Re-reading you "and the related text changes" has been useful!
I'm fixing this now.
I also added "jSPF" to the
Stefano
PS: As soon as I'll find the time I'll also create an export for mime4j
site (currently in http://www.mime4j.org/) in the
james.apache.org/mime4j folder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> 2) replaced 2.2.0 with 2.3.0 in download.xml
>
> Whoops ... this and the related text changes on the main page are premature, until we do release JAMES v2.3. This is the only thing that I feel should be reverted ... FOR NOW. Everything else is a go. I'd really like to publish the site, with all of the JAMES v2.3 beta content; we just can't say that v2.3 is released until it is.
Well, this is good, because in fact I did exactly the opposite.
Our trunk xdocs already generate 2.3.0 references in the download page,
so I replaced 2.3.0 with 2.2.0 before submitting to the site repository.
Sorry for the wrong comment, happy to see you noticed this!
Stefano
PS: about the other things I will do the simple ones before updating.
About the layout I did something as a test few weeks ago, but I thought
we can live with 2 different layouts for a while: not perfect, but
better than nothing!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Normally I wouldn't call a vote for a site update, but I just finished
> committing more than *1000* files updated in our site/trunk repository.
ROFLMAO! :-D
Yes, that's what happens. :-) We've all been there and done that, and had the same reaction. Welcome to the club. :-)
> I published an export of the updated site here:
> http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/www/
> http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/www/jspf/
Thanks for that, Stefano. :-)
Several changes:
Would you please update the stylesheet to use the ApacheCon US 2006 logo instead of the one from last year? And, yes, you're about to generate a huge number of changed pages.
URL: http://www.apache.org/ads/ApacheCon/234x60-2006-us.gif
Also, the beta is 2.3.0b3, not b1.
We should add jSPF to the navigation tree for the JAMES site, although I really dislike that we have two totally different looks.
There are other things that need to change, but revising the site is an evolution. For example, the version specific docs ought to be under a version specific directory, so that we can publish docs for multiple versions.
> 2) replaced 2.2.0 with 2.3.0 in download.xml
Whoops ... this and the related text changes on the main page are premature, until we do release JAMES v2.3. This is the only thing that I feel should be reverted ... FOR NOW. Everything else is a go. I'd really like to publish the site, with all of the JAMES v2.3 beta content; we just can't say that v2.3 is released until it is.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org