I would love if we could separate the logging pages from the release cycle.
There was once a blocker using Phing, I think it had something to do with not 
supporting UTF-8 correclty. Most likely this is gone by now and I would be fine 
to move on.


-- 
  Christian Grobmeier
  [email protected]

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019, at 05:04, Ralph Goers wrote:
> FWIW,  
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LOGGING/Managing+the+Logging+Services+Web+Site
>  
> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LOGGING/Managing+the+Logging+Services+Web+Site>
>  discusses how the logging services web site and the individual logging 
> projects are built.  I’ve heard rumblings that the ASF CMS is being or has 
> been replaced or that you can at least use git but I haven’t investigated 
> that. I can tell you I have a love/hate relationship with how the Log4j 
> documentation is created. For Java it makes more sense since it generates 
> some neat stuff automatically but I am not sure what added value it would 
> bring to a project like log4php.
> 
> So as far as that goes, the only thing that matters is that the source 
> for the site is in source control - we could even request a GitHub 
> project to host all the logging subproject web sites if we want - and 
> that the generated site(s) are checked in to match ASF Infra’s 
> expectations. You can read about the ASF CMS at 
> https://www.apache.org/dev/cms <https://www.apache.org/dev/cms>, The 
> only documentation on using git for the rendered site that I could find 
> is at https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/git_based_websites_available 
> <https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/git_based_websites_available>.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> > On Oct 29, 2019, at 8:35 PM, Kate Gray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > I've updated some of the source documents.  It looks like it's pretty 
> > broken - apigen, for example, isn't stable above PHP5.    The Release 
> > Candidate is really brittle, requiring specific commits of other libraries.
> > 
> > There's an issue, LOG4PHP-192, that mentions using phing.  As I mentioned 
> > in the issue, I'm personally in favor of using phing, as it would make it 
> > possible to build .phar (compiled archives) that are a bit easier to work 
> > with.  A lot of tools are distributed that way these days.
> > 
> > If we're just generating .html files, we could go the native PHP way and 
> > use Sculpin to generate the site.  It takes twig (a simple template 
> > engine), markdown and spits out static HTML.
> > 
> > API documentation could be done with phpDocumentor, phpDox, or doxygen.  
> > I'm a bit partial to phpDox personally.
> > 
> > What do people think?
> > 
> > Kate
> 
>

Reply via email to