Hi Daniel, I think my memory is playing tricks on me - I'm pretty sure that there was some repo with the freemarker-generator documentation you started?
Can't find it on my laptop, can't find it in Git - any ideas? Thanks in advance, Siegfried Goeschl > On 27.10.2021, at 14:23, Daniel Dekany <daniel.dek...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So, you plan to rewrite the documentation starting out from a blank sheet, > right? Then I indeed shouldn't put more energy into the conversion, and at > least Docgen has become more capable while trying to port the existing > documentation. The new examples should be chosen so that they are > realistically runnable inside Docgen (and if it's not too hard, with Docgen > running on Windows). > > Java 8 date/time wrapping and formatting is clearly top priority, yes. And > then at least some basic date/time operations. > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 7:11 PM Siegfried Goeschl < > siegfried.goes...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> Don't be so harsh ;-) >> >> * No plans to maintain the Maven site after the initial release >> * This is open source and therefore best effort >> * Guess supporting Java 8 date / time is much more important for the >> community >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Siegfried Goeschl >> >> >>> On 24.10.2021, at 23:38, Daniel Dekany <daniel.dek...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I did not mean that any of them are blocking. >>> >>> Keeping two documentation up to date is a growing pain. It's my weakness >>> though that it's still not done. Yet, if you plan to do a bigger >> reworking, >>> it's better done on the DocBook version. >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 6:58 PM Siegfried Goeschl < >>> siegfried.goes...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Daniel, >>>> >>>> Both topics are non-blocking in my opinion >>>> >>>> Regarding documentation: >>>> >>>> A complete Maven website including Markdown content is generated. And >>>> documentation will be updated, extended and moved to Docbook but that >> can >>>> be done any time - no need to introduce additional dependencies >>>> >>>> Regarding backward compatibility: >>>> >>>> * The code is mostly written by one person and that's me - so it is not >> a >>>> mature code base >>>> * There are hardly any users out there and new user will detect bugs, >>>> suggest improvements or will tell you that some parts are simply broken >> by >>>> design - enforcing backward compatibility will do some harm here >>>> * I consider backward compatibility important assuming that you HAVE >> many >>>> users out there >>>> * It is a command-line tools mostly used by developers and they know >> what >>>> a 0.x release means - some things are in motion and need time to settle >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance, >>>> >>>> Siegfried Goeschl >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 24.10.2021, at 15:16, Daniel Dekany <daniel.dek...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I guess we can get away with the Maven generated site, if the >>>> standard >>>>> ASF footer and that conference ad thingy can be added. It would be more >>>>> rational to push through with the conversion to DocBook though. The >> main >>>>> cause of the slowdown is that I had this idea that we actually run >>>>> everything that we show, and never copy-paste sources and output. That >>>> was >>>>> proven to be tricky in many cases, and is still unsolved in some (like >>>>> where the example uses Linux shell features). I should just let that go >>>> for >>>>> now and push through with the conversion with copy-pasting where we >> still >>>>> have problems. On that note, I wonder if you want to rework the content >>>>> anyway, like we want to move most examples outside the documentation, >> and >>>>> then people can open them in IDE, modify them to play around, etc. If >> you >>>>> do such reworking, or any serious reworking really, that should be >>>> already >>>>> done in DocBook. >>>>> >>>>> The warning about no backward compatibility needs to be apparent from >>>>> whatever documentation we release (the DocBook version has it). >> Backward >>>>> compatibility is really the main pain with the release. As we promise >> not >>>>> backward compatibility, we basically release software without promising >>>>> later support. People can still decide to use it (or they just don't >>>>> realize what this means). But, you may feel pressure to keep backward >>>>> compatibility instead of doing the right thing, which at this stage is >>>>> maybe not wise. (Also no support can be tricky when there's a security >>>>> issue with an old release. Although that's probably less relevant for a >>>>> tool like this.) >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 1:02 PM Siegfried Goeschl < >>>>> siegfried.goes...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>>> >>>>>> There is still the Maven-based site which can be created using >>>>>> >>>>>>> mvn clean site site:stage >>>>>> >>>>>> I will look into the source release packages ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks in advance, >>>>>> >>>>>> Siegfried Goeschl >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 24.10.2021, at 11:38, Daniel Dekany <daniel.dek...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Still no site for example. Note sure about the others, had to review >>>> last >>>>>>> time's list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can we build a source release package with all the necessary >>>>>>> NOTICE-s/LICENSE-s and signing? For this kind of project we will also >>>>>> want >>>>>>> a binary release package. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 6:59 PM Siegfried Goeschl < >>>>>>> siegfried.goes...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What stops us from having the first release? Any blockers we are >> aware >>>>>> of? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks in advance, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Siegfried Goeschl >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Daniel Dekany >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Daniel Dekany >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Daniel Dekany >> >> > > -- > Best regards, > Daniel Dekany
