Sorry, meant to reply this, but totally fell out of my radar. The reason why we are doing per-release and release-independent docs is that there are some docs that document the code (tutorial, javadoc, etc), and some docs that dont (the main site).
Having said that, I don't think keeping the docs separated is a blocker for going maven. We can merge these, and if it still makes sense to separate the two, we can do it later. Enis On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Henry, > > When I started on this my opinion changed somewhat > The investment required is as follows > > 1) Maven (svnpubsub) I can grab the maven fluido skin [0] (which looks > OK) and have it up and running reasonably shortly. > 2) Apache CMS, this requires someone writing the site however the > publishing workflow is so much less hassle. > > What do you think? > > Lewis > > [0] http://maven.apache.org/skins/maven-fluido-skin/ > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Henry Saputra <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Lewis, > > > > With Maven site, does it mean we are still using the svn pubsub or we > could > > move to ASF CMS for publishing it? > > > > - Henry > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I'm currently setting about the transition from Forrest to Maven for > >> the site docs. > >> It complicates things by having the "current" two tier structure which > >> we maintain for the site docs. I therefore propose to just have docs. > >> Enis, you had reasons and justification behind the legacy Gora > >> documentation structure, if you could remind us again it would be > >> excellent. > >> I am working on this today regardless and will hopefully have a new > >> proposal for the Mavenized site prepared shortly. > >> > >> Thanks, everyone. > >> > >> Happy St Andrews Day > >> > >> Lewis > >> > >> -- > >> Lewis > >> > > > > -- > Lewis >
