On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Antonio Petrelli <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all > this is just to let you know that I've finished reorganizing all > Velocity projects. I left only the DocBook framework since it is not a > project, but a directory layout useful to build your documents based > on DocBook. > For produced builds see: > http://people.apache.org/builds/velocity/ > > A snapshot of all projects are in Maven snapshot repository. > > At this point I hope to receive some feedback from you and, if you > like it, maybe we can start a vote thread to move projects from the > sandbox to the trunk.
Ok, summer is nuts. I'm finally digging into a lot of old velocity todo stuff, including this. I've been running the maven-reorg builds and poking around at them. For the most part, i like it. It will certainly take some getting used to though, and i'm still fairly wary of complicated Maven stuff after all my frustration with the velocity-site mess. But at this point, you'll have my support in a vote for moving this into the Engine 2.0, Tools 2.1, etc, with one condition: documentation. With the proliferation of artifacts and their various reasons and dependencies, we need some very user-friendly "Which Jar Is For Me?" type of documentation for users. We also need to be sure that you aren't the only one who understands how this customized, complicated Maven build works. And finally, i don't know if maven can do this, but one of my current favorite parts of the Velocity and VelocityTools build files is that they spit out customized directions for building and publishing releases right along with the target output, including what documentation to be sure and update. That really helps to keep me on track when i'm doing releases. Also, i'm curious whether any of these builds include OSGi manifest creation? That's a recent addition to some of our builds (just engine and tools at this point, i think), that i don't want to lose. All in all, this is great work, and i'm excited to see us move in a more standard direction for our next versions. I am very sorry that it took me so long to respond, and i hope you aren't too discouraged that no one else has responded yet. It's a big thing to consider and hard to comment intelligently without putting in a lot of time. Good documentation to read over that explains how/what is going on with all the poms and such would probably help get more response, but i know you've put in a lot of work already. So, seriously, what do the rest of you guys think? We've long talked about perhaps doing this in 2.0. Should we fire up an official vote thread or just voice support here? Henning, i know you are planning to work on fixing velocity-site, does any of this help? hinder? > Thanks > Antonio > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
