On 1/3/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Phil, On Jan 2, 2007, at 8:37 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 1/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I created a simple website using my standard ant and velocity based >> framework (easy to work with...) and checked that into SVN in /site. >> I also staged it for the public webserver - should be out there at >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/river >> >> in a few hours at most. >> >> All, please try to check it out (use https, please), and if there are >> things you want changed, lets submit patches to JIRA for now. > > > Sorry, I did not read that last line carefully and committed some > typo fixes > directly. I assume that was OK, since the changes were only to fix > typos / > references to Harmony, etc. It's ok, but unless you changed the typos in both docs and xdocs, the changes in docs will be overwritten by the next build of the same page from the xdocs sources. The xdocs and docs content appear to be in sync as of now... >
Yes, I committed both, per Geir's most excellent instructions in the README (though I had real trouble with step 4 ;-) Unfortunately, I am not (yet) in the incubator unix group, so was unable to do the svn up to "publish" the changes. Things should be fine for subsequent updates/patches - just make sure to svn up local copies before making changes.
Something that I would like to discuss is whether we are really > going to use > STATUS as described on the guidelines page. Some of the verbiage > there > makes it look like we will be using the STATUS file + dev list as > a sort of > surrogate for JIRA. For example, > > "When a specific change to the software is proposed for discussion > or voting > on the mailing list, it should be presented in the form of input to > the > patch command. When sent to the mailing list, the message should > contain a > Subject beginning with [PATCH] and a distinctive one-line summary > corresponding to the action item for that patch. Afterwards, the patch > summary in the STATUS file should be updated to point to the > Message-ID of > that message." > > I would expect to see the process here 1) discuss idea on the list > 2) open > JIRA ticket 3) add patch to ticket and subsequently refer to the > ticket > number in discussion. Yes, I agree. If the project is going to use JIRA, this process should be changed to specify how to use JIRA. As Geir said, this is a first cut at a pretty big job, and one of the good things about the volume of the site that Geir set up is that there is lots of stuff to discuss on the alias. Like the governance model including how to submit changes. > > I know that we *must* maintain a STATUS file to track incubation- > related > tasks, but I don't see the value in tracking all development tasks > in this > file, when we have JIRA available. What am I missing here? Maybe you could update the patch process paragraph above and propose it to the community as a substitute. Then update the xdocs site with the results of the discussion.
Looks like the discussion has started. I will consolidate and update. A good discussion might be whether to use JIRA for site updates. For
trivial updates like you mentioned, it's probably more trouble than it's worth. By the way, the process to update the web site is documented at river/ site/README.txt. Terse but well worth reading.
Craig
> > Phil Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
