I am not sure if we've laid out how we are going to build the release versions of [lang], but here is my recommendation:
For other projects I do, I build the jar file, source and binary dists using ant. I do this using an old JDK (1.3, although perhaps it should even be 1.2). I also use this same jar file to upload to ibiblio. I do NOT use maven - it uses the wrong JDK and I don't trust it enough. I DO use maven for building the website, which I do with JDK 1.4/1.5. After doing maven site, I copy the javadoc to a new directory api-2.1. Only then do I do maven site:sshdeploy. On the server, I manually link api-release to api-2.1. The navigation.xml file contains hyperlinks to api-release to refer to the release docs, and apidocs to refer to the latest CVS javadoc (which will be the same just after a release). Thus the server contains: root - apidocs - CVS latest javadoc - api-2.0 - javadoc of 2.0 (copy on server before upload) - api-2.1 - javadoc of 2.1 (upload with maven in release) - api-release - link to api-2.1 And ALL jar files are produced by ant under JDK1.3 (or 1.2) Stephen --- Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3) the binary dist is fat. The 2.0 binary tarball > was under 500k and the > > 2.1 candidate is over 2MB. This is all due to the > site stuff. Might be > > better to turn off some / most of the maven > project reports (esp. the > > xref reports) and drop some of the maven image / > logo cruft. For the > > latter, have a look at the maven.xml for > directory-naming. Could be > > this (ability to prevent unused images/logos from > being copied out) is > > now available in the latest maven xdoc plugin. > > Nasty. > > I'm -0 to the whole placing of the site in the > dists. Seems like a > waste of bandwidth. > > Documentation should be in there, but a site != > documentation (maven's > fault, though other non-maven places do exactly the > same thing) and > much of the documentation is hardly pertinent > (source xref's?). I can > see some argument for it being in th src dists, but > we don't even have > it there. Is there anything other than javadoc that > should be there? > The userguide is the only thing that jumps to mind, > but it's > incomplete. > > Only -0 because I'll never have to download the > dists. I'll be using > the ibiblio .jar file and the online javadoc (until > they get > overwritten by the latest from HEAD, which is a well > known grumble for > another time). > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
