I've been making some changes to Genesis 1.5-SNAPSHOT to get maven site
generation working a little bit better and fix a few other things. All
of this is because there were still some maven site generation issues
after releasing samples. I think I have things working better now ...
but I have some questions:
- Regarding the site.xml ... it looked to me like the original intent
was to leverage completely the site.xml from genesis. However, I could
never get this working correctly to include the header for the generated
site. As a result ... I ended up including some of the same site.xml
content in samples such as the skin and banner definition. Is that a
problem?
- Genesis: When we were getting samples out the door I ended up
including some temporary junk in the sample pom/site. I've now removed
this and made some minor changes to genesis/branches/genesis-1.x.
Should I look at releasing Genesis 1.5 until 2.0 is complete or should
we put all emphasis on 2.0? What is the current status of 2.0? BTW ..
I also noticed that generating a site for genesis 2.0-SNAPSHOT itself
has some issues .... something else to look into.
- Specs: I've also made some similar changes locally for specs. I
think these will produce more correct maven sites. However, the would
require changes to depend on a newer Genesis and would require releasing
a new specs-parent (1.6). I don't want to include these snapshot
dependencies which would hinder the ability to release specs for now ...
so I'm waiting on the Genesis decision. If we want to push out a
Genesis 1.5 rc and get that up for vote.
General: Is this really worth the effort? It seems that we haven't put
much of an emphasis on maven sites. Is this because there were problems
generating them or because we don't see much value? Most of what we
have out there now is 2 years old (see
http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/maven-generated-documentation.html).
It think there are some concerns of how useful these are, particularly
for multi-project release (like server). The site information generated
is per project and doesn't provide a good overview. IIUC, this can be
aggregated for some if not all things (like javadoc). In the past we
have provided independent javadoc in addition to the site (which I
suspect is why, I suspect that the latest javadoc available for the
server from our site if for 2.0.1). Should we focus energy on getting
independent javadoc release, improve maven site generation and leverage
that for javadoc/xrefs, or both?
Joe
- maven site generation & genesis Joe Bohn
-
