Yep I (and others) had that too. I think it's probably an intermediate proxy problem. Try to view your page again tomorrow, it might be ok then...
This should really be properly fixed though... On 1 August 2013 16:56, Graham Charters <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been having publish problems. I created a page to document the > esa-maven-plugin [1] and updated the menu to link it in. I've published it > on numerous occasions and sometimes it's appeared on the public site and > others it's gone. Any thoughts? > > [1] http://aries.staging.apache.org/modules/esamavenpluginproject.html > > > On 10 July 2013 22:45, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > OK forget that. Either my browser was playing up or the publish I just > > did for the July board report kicked it all into action. > > > > On 10 July 2013 22:38, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi David, I was looking at the Aries home page and thought 'hang on > > > didn't David update this to refer to R5 a while back'. I can see your > > > changes on aries.staging.apache.org but not yet on aries.apache.org. > > > Did you hit th publish link? I ask this, because I have had problems > > > with the 'overview' directory recently and updates not getting > > > published properly. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Jeremy > > > > > > On 5 June 2013 11:10, David Bosschaert <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> I've made the changes as agreed. I didn't touch the release pages. > > Removed > > >> the javadoc, release notes pages and pointer to inactive Aries blog. > > >> I've also updated the 'programming model' page to be a more > > comprehensive > > >> (but high-level) list of technologies available in Aries: > > >> http://aries.apache.org/documentation/ariesprogrammingmodel.html > > >> > > >> Anyone: feel free to make additional changes... > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> > > >> David > > >> > > >> On 4 June 2013 13:53, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi David, > > >>> > > >>> I made some comments and votes largely in line with what's been > > >>> discussed... > > >>> > > >>> On 4 June 2013 12:24, David Bosschaert <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >>> > On 28 May 2013 14:43, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> >> > > >>> >> On May 27, 2013, at 10:18 AM, David Bosschaert < > > >>> [email protected]> > > >>> >> wrote: > > >>> >> > Downloads > > >>> >> > * This page was last updated for the 1.0.0 release train and I > > wonder > > >>> >> > whether we need it. All this info is available in Maven Central, > > can > > >>> we > > >>> >> not > > >>> >> > simply remove it? > > >>> >> > * Release notes. Since we are now supporting modular releases, > do > > >>> central > > >>> >> > release notes make sense? I would simply remove this page. > > >>> >> > * Archived releases - again, can we simply leverage Maven > central > > for > > >>> >> this? > > >>> >> > > >>> >> No for 1 and 3. Per Apache policy, the releases must be > > downloadable > > >>> from > > >>> >> the Apache mirror network and old releases available from > > >>> >> archive.apache.org/dist. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> > I didn't hear any objections to the other suggestions I made. If > > nobody > > >>> > shouts soon I'll make the changes I outlined in my original email > > (pasted > > >>> > below for reference) with the exception of the items pointed out by > > Dan > > >>> > above. > > >>> > > > >>> > Again - we can always add any of these pages back later if we > want. I > > >>> just > > >>> > want to get rid of as much stuff that is blatantly out of date... > > >>> > > > >>> > Cheers, > > >>> > > > >>> > David > > >>> > > > >>> > ---- > > >>> > Original mail: > > >>> > > > >>> > Hi all, > > >>> > > > >>> > I had a quick browse through the Aries website and noticed that > > there are > > >>> > quite a number of outdated pages. In some cases it was easy to > > update the > > >>> > pages to more recent info (e.g. for the latest OSGi specs) but in > > other > > >>> > cases I would propose the simply remove the outdated information. > If > > >>> > someone has the time to provide a replacement this can then be done > > >>> later. > > >>> > > > >>> > Here's what I found: > > >>> > > > >>> > Documentation > > >>> > * Programming Model: The Application model has since been > superseded > > by > > >>> the > > >>> > standardised Subsystems. Proposal: remove Application bullets. > > >>> > > >>> +0. Would be good to keep it there but in a 'superceded' section. > > >>> > > >>> > * Pointers to OSGi specs: I updated these to point to R5 (was 4.2). > > >>> > > >>> +1 to keeping this up to date. > > >>> > > >>> > * Javadoc: this incomplete lists of modules points at old versions > > >>> (0.3). I > > >>> > would propose to delete this page as this info is available in the > > >>> > published javadoc maven artefacts. > > >>> > > >>> +1 > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > Downloads > > >>> > * This page was last updated for the 1.0.0 release train and I > wonder > > >>> > whether we need it. All this info is available in Maven Central, > can > > we > > >>> not > > >>> > simply remove it? > > >>> > > >>> -1 Like Dan says, our releases must be available from > > >>> www.apache.org/dist and having a list of the releases is the best > way > > >>> of getting to them. > > >>> > > >>> > * Release notes. Since we are now supporting modular releases, do > > central > > >>> > release notes make sense? I would simply remove this page. > > >>> > > >>> +1. Each release should get a set of release notes in JIRA. It would > > >>> be nice to have this linked from the main downloads page. > > >>> > > >>> > * Archived releases - again, can we simply leverage Maven central > for > > >>> this? > > >>> > > >>> -1 Like Dan say. > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > Community > > >>> > * Aries group blog - hasn't been active since 2010. Should we > remove > > this > > >>> > link from the menu? > > >>> > > >>> +0 > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > I don't really have the time to completely polish up the website > but > > I > > >>> > would be happy to make the above changes to ensure that the > obsolete > > info > > >>> > is gone. > > >>> > > > >>> > Thoughts anyone? > > >>> > Cheers, > > >>> > > > >>> > David > > >>> > > >
