Where do we put additions to the FAQ or status updates in that case then? Update the main site or only the new one?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Pugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 25 August 2003 9:49 AM > To: 'Maven Developers List' > Subject: RE: generated site at maven.apache.org > > > I think I like #4. The reason is that once a 1.0 goes out, > most users will only be wanting to look at the documentation > that applies to that release. By having a prominent link to > "whats current" then for people who are using unreleased > versions will be able to look at the docs that apply to CVS head. > > So, right now the site would be "Beta 10" with a link to > "RC1". Then, when RC1 is released, all of the documenation > is moved to the root, and a new "1.1" directory starts having > the latest and greatest. That way there is never any need to > try and diff between the two tracks. One just replaces the other. > > that seems to be the least amount of work at least.. > > Eric > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:43 AM > > To: 'Maven Developers List' > > Subject: generated site at maven.apache.org > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I wanted to bounce around ideas about how we generate the site at > > maven.apache.org. I fielded a question from a user on the > dev list who > > was trying to use installation instructions for the next release for > > installing > > beta-10. Fair enough, since that's all that was available :) > > > > Here are the alternatives I can think of: > > 1) distribute documentation with maven, and then express on > the site > > that what is there may be newer than their install - use the > > instructions they > > got with the download > > 2) create a cvs branch for each release on xdocs. Anything > > that applies > > to > > current release or is news and status can be applied to the > branch and > > the > > branch is put up on the site, while release stuff is on HEAD. > > 3) opposite of 2 - put new doco on a branch until the > release is ready > > when > > it can be merged to HEAD. Site is released from HEAD. > > 4) Generate two sites: maven.apache.org and > maven.apache.org/beta-10 - > > link > > back to the old one from the releases page and perhaps a > special case > > for > > install instructions. > > 5) opposite of 4: maven.apache.org remains as beta-10, but > have a link > > for > > "up-to-the-minute" doco. > > 6) split site into two - maven-site (a new module) and then the xdoc > > which > > is release specific. Main site can link to the latest > release only for > > install instructions, etc, but rest of the site stays right > > up to date. > > > > Any other ideas? I'm leaning towards (6). > > > > In the mean time, tomorrow when I get my first chance to do > some work > > again, I'll add something to the install instructions that > specifies > > which steps > > are RC1+ only. > > > > Do we have a specified process for getting the site released? One > > particular person looking after it, or do all developers have > > permission to rnu maven > > site:deploy? > > > > Cheers, > > Brett > > > > -- > > Brett Porter > > Team Leader, Core Systems > > f2 network ~ everything essential > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
