+1 for the Fluido skin. But this is just for the release-independent site, right?
- Henry On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < [email protected]> wrote: > I started the Maven transition and can complete tomorrow. > > Is everyone happy with the fluido skin that I mentioned? > > If so then I will work to get it sorted out tomorrow. > > Best > > Lewis > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > >> > > > > -- > Lewis >
