On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 15:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > My preliminary reaction: > I agree that a common directory layout is a very good idea, but it appears > to me that we are talking about 3 layouts: > 1. the repository > 2. the distribution > 3. the website > > 1. The repository is under CVS. IMO it should not include any files > generated by the project's Ant build. So distributed doc and website doc > (whether identical or not) should not be in the repository. I think the > repository should include a tools dir, not a build dir, for binaries > required to do the build.
No file that is generated by another program should be in the repository. Period. > 2. As the jakarta document acknowledges, many distributions include a > source distribution and a binary distribution. I agree that the source > distribution should mimic the repository. I do not think it should include > generated doc. For that, the user runs the build or downloads the binary > distribution. I think the binary distribution should include JARs and the > generated doc. I do not think it makes sense to include the class tree. > That makes the download more cumbersome and duplicates what is already in > the JARs. I think that this follows from the above. > When the user runs an Ant build, then I think the results should be put in > a build tree. I think it is a good idea not to overwrite the binary > distribution (assuming the user downloaded it). I prefer build/ to bin/. > for this build tree. In response to a question that was raised, the build > tree does include a number of "intermediate" files that are not required in > the binary distribution (such as a class tree, which the user can get by > expanding the JAR). > I see no reason for dist/. This is not in the repository and the user gets > it by downloading and expanding the distribution. Likewise not reason for a > separate docs/ tree somehow distinct from the website. If the distributed > doc is different, the user gets it by downloading and expanding the binary > distribution file, or by downloading the source distribution and running a > build. > > 3. We need a directory tree to hold the website (docs and docs/api). I > don't think we should put any of this in CVS. The jakarta proposal appears > to put the docs generated from XML in the repository but not the api doc. > As long as we are copying the javadoc to the website (or to a staging > area?), we might as well do the same with the other doc. Like I said - I don't see any reason for any generated files to be in the repository. As far as the website goes, I'd like to see something like a background ANT task that would checkout whatever is required to build the website (all sub project websites, including JavaDoc) and build it. Getting rid of the manual copy step is a must. The old situation where we had the html output of stylebook checked into the repository is is also bad news. > I'm sure I'll have more to say (hopefully helpful!) as this discussion > continues. > > -- Don Leslie > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
