http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jakarta-site2.html
> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter M. Goldstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 09 December 2002 21:05 > To: 'James Developers List' > Subject: RE: Linefeeds in www (was RE: cvs commit: jakarta-james/www/) > > > > Noel, > > > My point was simply that such content is there, and needs to be > accounted. > > And we should address our www building process when we look at > > Maven/Forrest. But we also have to deal with whatever requirements we > > have > > from the ASF in terms of having a CVS entry for their controlled > > management > > of the web site. > > Ok. I don't quite get what your point is here. Of course we need to > account for it. But it's not like that's terribly difficult. There > isn't much of it, as I detailed in my previous email. > > As far as ASF/CVS requirements, I don't believe that there is any such > animal. Right now our website update process is completely manual and > totally instigated by James committers. That is, unless Danny, myself, > or someone else goes into daedalus and manually updates the subdirectory > via CVS update, the website remains unchanged. There is no automatic > ASF process that updates it for us (and hence might require www in CVS). > > I've never read any documentation that indicated that it is either > necessary or desirable in the eyes of the ASF that the website > HTML/images be stored in CVS in an immediately deployable form. If > anyone knows of such docs, please send a link to the list so we can > discuss. If there is such a requirement, I'll be happy to argue against > it with the ASF. > > > Perhaps it would be better to have a separate james-site module, and > > publish > > to it, so that the normal James module does not have any generated > > content. > > I don't know. > > Ugh. Same problem with updates, just deferred to a different module. > We'd have to manually update changes to the Javadoc. That sort of thing > has continuously led to discrepancies that lasted for months in terms of > the Javadoc available via the website and the Javadoc produced from the > source code. > > Let me reiterate. Dynamic build products being stored in source control > is a terrible idea. I don't care what source control system, I don't > care what module, this remains a bad idea. We just shouldn't do it. > > --Peter > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
