Thanks Joe! I'm not sure why the javadoc is checked in into svn in the first place. Seems to me like that's unnecessary since we should always be able to regenerate the javadoc from source. So, I'm ok with removing any javadoc from svn but we should keep the javadoc for any major Geronimo version accessible online. I guess right now that should be 2.1.3 and 2.0.2.
Jarek On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I built and checked in the server 2.1.3 javadocs. This seemed to be the > most expedient thing to do but there are some concerns: > > #1 This is a huge amount of content to include in svn. I think infra will > not be happy with us. > #2 Given #1, I debated deleting the 2.0.1 javadoc. However, this won't save > anything given that svn must keep the history. It will save anyone from > getting all of the 2.0.1 content if they check out the site trunk. What do > you think, should we delete or keep 2.0.1 javadoc? > #3 Also given #1, it's probably a good thing that we haven't done this for > each release. Perhaps we should just do this once for each major version? > Thoughts? > #4 We had discussed using the maven generated site rather than distributing > this javadoc. However that also presents some problems: > - Currently it doesn't build for tags/2.1.3 (at least not for me). > - When it does build, the javadoc is per module/project. So rather than a > complete view of javadoc as with that just checked in you must first > navigate to the module of interest and then you can view the javadoc for > that module. This doesn't seem as useful to me. > > I'm not sure if I want to take the time to investigate the mvn site issues > right now .... anybody else interested? > > Joe > > > > Ted Kirby wrote: >>> >>> From the home page, if I choose Javadoc as the first choice under the >> >> Development section of the left nav bar, I get 2.0.1 Javadoc. This >> should be updated to 2.1.3. >> >> Ted Kirby >> > >
