Hi Oleg, >> I start to get the feeling that Maven is a black hole that >> drags everything into it. > > Maven is VERY invasive. It either its way or the highway. However, it > does help to enforce uniform release structure and process, which is, in > my opinion, a good thing.
I'm fine with Maven as a _release_ build tool. I'm less fine with Maven as a site generation tool. I see the point as long as the site is published with the release, as is the case for commons-httpclient with it's extensive documentation. That's why I suggested to use Maven for the parts of the site that are associated with a component and usually updated only after a release, and use something else for the "main" site that could see intermediate updates. But even that won't work if we want to add documentation to a component and publish that without waiting for the next release. I just noticed that the HttpComponents site only uses Maven report plugins that are tied to the source code, which is good. The 3.1 site also generates reports from SVN, which makes little sense unless the site is updated on a regular basis. Would you mind me removing the "Change Log", "Developer Activity" and "File Activity" reports from the old site? Some others also make little sense, given the current change frequency in the 3.1 codebase: "JavaDoc Report", "JavaDoc Warnings Report", and "Task List". But maybe you are using these locally when coding? > Roland, Sebastian > > Feel free to explore alternatives. I will happily step aside for a > while. I don't have a short-term alternative that supports a friendly wiki-like text markup. I'm beginning to think that it isn't such a bad idea to have a site published from a Confluence Wiki though. Go ahead with Maven site building. We can consider alternatives next year, when the dust has settled. I'll find enough to do to keep me occupied. cheers, Roland --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
