On 3/20/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It isn't a recommendation. It is mandatory to have a simple mechanism > that reproduces the exact content that was on the site, so that we can > quickly check for content that has been modified by a crack on www. > Maven site:deploy generates different content every time -- it does > not qualify at all.
I don't agree that "Maven site:deploy generates different content every time": if you start from the exact source code it will generate an identical copy of the documentation, except for generation dates and execution times for junit. And I don't think that replacing pages on the live site with identical pages with this normal changes means "not being able to reproduce the exact content that was on the site" > One idea was to move these generated files to a staging area and > reproduce from there, but that failed to generate enough volunteers > on site-dev (mostly because people insist on defending forrest or > maven or whatever as the uber-tool instead of just doing the work). That is a good solution, and we are already do that with maven. You can setup a staging site where everything gets published and only sync the live website using rsync from there. Xdoc already supports this kind of steps. About defending tools: I absolutely don't want to pointlessly defend maven, I am just expressing my personal though on some problems that IMHO are not problems at all. You first pointed out that you would like to drop maven because of problems in the documentation it generates and I just wanted to understand what kind of problems did you had... for most of these the tool used is not important at all: if you want to have a test report on the website you will have changing execution times regardless of the tool you use to generate it, and if you don't want to have such report you can simply turn it off without having to swith to a different tool for such reason. > In any case, it is incredibly brain dead to set up automated > instructions in maven so that anyone with a login on apache.org > can ssh the content to the live website. I don't think Maven > would appreciate it if I checked out an old version of their sources > and accidentally ran that command. Unlike most people, I do have the > permissions necessary to wipe out everyone's website on apache.org. I can't get the point here... you (or anybody else with the needed right) could wipe out any website on apache.org, both if it was published using maven or not. And all the content could be easily republished both recreating it using maven or checking it out from subversion... > The reports that Maven produces are very useful for a developer to > generate on their own machine. I don't think anyone else should be > subjected to the reports generated on *my* machine, since OS X's > version of java is not what server-side developers care about when > they go looking for problems to fix. The only report which is heavily system dependent is probably the junit one. But anyway I find Xref source code, javadocs, changes reports very useful and not enviroment dependent at all. And having a test report generated from a different machine than mine turned out to be useful in several situation, when something on my env was not setup correctly. > My guess is that the best way to handle this is to use Maven's > version of anakia to generate the site (for developers) but only > deploy a small subset of that to jackrabbit.apache.org (without > the reports, xref, etc.). That could probably be a solution, just checking in the main docs and leaving reports in a "developer sections" where nothing cames form subversion fabrizio
