Hi, On 3/15/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am increasingly finding that 95% or more of the maven generated > information is too detailed and changes too often to be useful for > a real site. In particular, the generators randomly change anchor > names for no good reason, which makes oversight of documentation > impossible. I also find the content of the maven generated info, > such as the list of project devs, to be mostly useless and not > very configurable.
I've found many of the Maven reports quite useful (for example the source xref is a great tool for quickly navigating the source tree), but the current site deployment model doesn't really support that use case. We should either have the whole site updated nightly or move the reports somewhere else where they can be updated more frequently than the main site. The Maven site generation process also seems to generate slightly different results in different environments. During the few times I've tried to update the site based on Roy's instructions I've ended up with a changeset that touches almost all files within the site. For example during the 0.9 release I only committed the changes to a select few of the updated pages. Even though the Maven site structure and some of the pages it generates are pretty much cast in stone, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Conformity is a cornerstone of usability so if you've learned to navigage one Maven site, you'll have no trouble navigating the Jackrabbit site. I also believe that we'll have more flexibility with the site once we upgrade to Maven2. > I am thinking of switching to plain Anakia for the site and using > hand-crafted XML pages for project information. We can then manually > publish the javadocs on a per-major-version basis. > Are there any objections to that? -0. In principle I'd be in favor of keeping the current Maven site, but as long as the generated HTML needs to go through SVN this seems a bit troublesome. How does the Maven project manage their site? I think switching to a plain Anakia site would be a step back, but I won't object if it's the only easy way to solve the problems mentioned above. > We need to update the README files. In particular, we should be > giving credit to everyone whose work has made it into the product, > whereas right now we only list the credits for the initial commit. > Perhaps we should move that stuff to a CHANGES.txt file? +1 BR, Jukka Zitting -- Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
