Comments inline.
-john
Tim O'Brien wrote:
Sorry, gmail confused me and I sent that last one by mistake John.
I don't think you'll be trading look and feel here. I think you'd just be
doing something like making the site.xml for trunk point to a logo or banner
GIF that just added a "trunk", "draft", or "development" stamp. If this was
done correctly, i think you could add it to the banner graphic in an
attractive way.
agreed.
But, it brings up some questions:
1. Would every minor release get a separate site? Or are we just talking
about major releases? In other words, is there a 2.x site, or is there a
2.0.2 site? (My vote is for a 2.x site.)
I'd say that since the feature set for minor releases should be stable,
there shouldn't be much reason to have separate web sites for each. The
documentation (for the most part) shouldn't address pending bugs, or if
it does, it should be updated when the next minor release comes out (as
in the case of a documented work-around).
2. What would the first page look like? What would Maven's home page look
like? Would it even be managed by Maven?
Something to think about is maybe not having the initial Maven page be a
Maven site. ASF sites in general seems to be more Developer focused than
user focused. What if the initial Maven site were more like the front pages
of Mozilla or Rails. An attractive logo, links to resources and materials,
an introduction. The home page should be user focused, Maven developers are
a minority of the audience here.
Are you saying that the developer-centric tendency is appropriate for
ASF project web sites, then? I'd tend to say that for a product like
Maven (not an API, like commons-cli, for instance) it's worth striving
to help the user. Since Maven is an Apache product/project, I'd say that
having a developer site on a different physical location would be
bad...they're different aspects of the same product/project. That said,
I think we need to section the developer docs off and put them a click
or so in from the main landing page...probably with their own landing page.
It's not a simple hierarchy, but then, we have a great deal of variation
among our audience members. As these audience members [possibly]
transition from users to contributors and so on, we don't want a
separation like this to get in their way...there should be *some*
cohesiveness, I would think...
On 3/8/06, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
Maybe we can put a banner at the top of each page that marks the version
it refers to or something. If we styled the reference doco as a manual,
it could be part of the page layout that ties it together. I'd be
willing to trade a bit of the look&feel for that sort of information, as
it seems to me that it would reduce confusion.
-john
Tim O'Brien wrote:
Having to choose between publishing the latest and greatest docs and
only
the released version is a problem that Maven seems to have created for
itself. Same issue comes up in other projects frequently - Commons has
a
problem because some of the sites only publish on a release. Latest and
greatest are almost never there.
What about publishing the latest and greatest docs to another directory?
The Maven site gets pushed to a directory that has a version of a
label. http://maven.apache.org/version/1.0
, http://maven.apache.org/version/2.0.2, and
http://maven.apache.org/version/trunk. This way the Maven site can have
a
nightly publish of the most current Maven site to Trunk every single
day,
but still keep legacy docs around intact for people using older versions
of
the product. The "consumer" site can point to the latest release, and
the
"developer" site can point to "trunk". The Maven site plugin would need
some mechanism for adding a skin to a site to clearly identify it as
"Development".
On 3/7/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/7/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* I'm still a little torn on where plugin docs go. No hurry on this,
but
something to ponder. We definitely need to make the references for
those
integrate better. Site/skin inheritance will help
No matter where they go, I think they need to be updated more often.
Random example... the assembly plugin docs are wrong, and have been
that way for months. (it's descriptorId, not
maven.assembly.descriptorId.)
* http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/howto.html
I would like to see the "latest and greatest" docs on the main site.
Yes, they'll be ahead of the released version, but not by much, and
(hopefully) not for long.When the answer to a lot of "X doesn't work"
questions is "It's fixed in the trunk, use a snapshot," it would be
nice to have the snapshot docs available in a centralized place.
This also makes it more fun to contribute to the documentation,
because you get to see your work "in print" right away.
Thanks for updating the main site. :)
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
