On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]>wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Anders Hammar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Isn't it a little bit of overkill to do a release for this? Why not
> > just simply replace that page on the site? Keep it simple...
>
> Well, I have always had mixed feelings about the fact that the doc for
> each component and plugin is so tightly tied to the release process.
>

It's not tied per-se. It calls the site process. Having the most update to
date release doco generated and published as part of the release process
makes good sense.


> The alternative is to checkout the tag, tweak the pom, and build and
> deploy the site.
>
> But this reminds me of another ancient peeve: the process of making
> the release tends to make the SCM page point at the release tag, not
> the trunk. I wish it were otherwise.
>

I could not disagree with you more.

The doco is generated by the release. The release is tagged. The links
point to the tag.

It is as it should be; it makes perfect sense.


>
>
> >
> > /Anders
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> A typical thing for people to do is to google for maven-foo, find the
> >> published 'site' doc, and then go to the SCM page.
> >>
> >> So, while we've got various ways to rescue people from the confusion
> >> that might ensue if they do the above before the next release, I'd
> >> suggest a point release or some other scheme just to get those scm
> >> pages upgraded.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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]
>
>

Reply via email to