mboapache commented on pull request #33:
URL: https://github.com/apache/db-jdo-site/pull/33#issuecomment-787532371
> First of all, this change breaks the deploy workflow, meaning it also has
to be adjusted as part of this PR.
> The workflow works under the explicit assumption that the target directory
only contains the `site` directory after the clean build. I added the
assumption to check whether there are any resources left that were not
automatically moved to another location, indicating that the workflow is
misconfigured and forgot something that is supposed to be deployed.
> I can adjust the action to match the new behavior if you would like. I
would just restrict the check to the `target/site` directory instead of the
whole `target` directory and discard any other remaining resources in the
`target` directory.
Yes, I saw an additional directory being created under target.
So it would be nice if you could adjust the action to work on target/site
only.
> Secondly, as a heads-up: The update of the AsciiDoc version causes a large
amount of changes to the build artifacts. But from having a look at them, there
are only very slight differences (mostly regarding spacing) as far as I can
tell. See attached diff for all changes:
>
[post-update-diff.txt](https://github.com/apache/db-jdo-site/files/6057803/post-update-diff.txt)
Thanks for the diff. Most of the changes seem to be OK, but I haven't
checked it in detail.
> Thirdly, regarding the version number: The website is a rolling release so
I don't think specifying a version really makes sense. Using the JDO version
only creates additional work having to remember to update the pom for each new
release. I would suggest just specifying version `1.0.0` as a default. As the
pom is not set up to create any kind of release artifacts, the version number
shouldn't matter anyways.
If we use a different version number as db-jdo, we might also want to change
the groupId being different from db-jdo. But I still think we should use the
same version number as the db-jdo repository.
>
> Lastly, as a process-related question: Did you add the link to the PR to
the Jira ticket manually? I am just wondering because the required syntax for
auto-linking would be `[JDO-789]` if I understand the wiki correctly.
No I did not add the link manually, so using the syntax JDO-789 (w/o square
brackets) seems to work.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
