On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Brett Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > In the branch, I've added two versions for artifacts: the project version > and the artifact version. So you might have: > > project version: 1.0-SNAPSHOT; artifact versions: 1.0-20091123.112233-1, > 1.0-20091123.223344-2 > > or > > project version: 7.0.1, artifact version: 7.0.1.v20091125 > > ... that is, it's not specific to snapshots - but it's the main use case > considering here. > > So, currently the project page is a bit funny: > - it only appears under /browse/.../1.0-SNAPSHOT/ (since it's looking for > the project version, not the artifact version) > - it lists the artifact versions under "other versions" > - all the artifact versions are listed in the download box > > Just a clarification.. when browsing at the artifactId level, you'll only see 1.0-SNAPSHOT or 7.0.1 in the list of versions right? I'm fine with this implementation, but maybe change "Other Versions" to "Artifact Versions" and make the difference between the "project version" and "artifact version(s)" clear in the docs :) > I think there's some alternatives: > 1) list the versions by artifact instead of by project (making the page an > "artifact" page instead of a project page) > 2) keep the current, but allow clicking through to the per-artifact > versions (again making it an artifact page instead of a project page, but > the higher pages in browse still reflect project versions) > In the current implementation, I thought you can also click through to the per-artifact versions? > 3) continue as is, list only the latest version of an artifact, click > through to the bare repository if you need older artifacts > 4) adjust the page to list all, categorised by version, in the download box > (perhaps folding the old ones by default). This makes it a project-centric > page > I'm also fine with #4 as an alternative :) > > None of the above affects the raw webdav repository, it is just the > "browse" aspects. > > I have a preference, but thought I'd check if others had one first? Are the > descriptions clear enough? > > Thanks, > Brett > > -- > Brett Porter > [email protected] > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > > Thanks, Deng
