Re: Getting XML Graphics Documentation into the SOURCE BINARY Releases
Hi folks, I just added the `svn:externals` call for getting the MarkDown docs into the SVN repos for Batik, Commons FOP. Hopefully it executed correctly… Here're the `propset` calls I executed: ### cd commons/trunk svn propset svn:externals 'docs http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/commons' . property 'svn:externals' set on '.' cd ../../batik/trunk svn propset svn:externals 'docs http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/batik' . property 'svn:externals' set on '.' cd ../../fop/trunk svn propset svn:externals 'docs http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/fop' . property 'svn:externals' set on '.' ### BTW, I didn't get an answer on the questions below, so I blew out my */trunk/build.* changes, and decided to check in just the `svn:externals` properties change by itself… Cheers! Happy Father's Day! Clay On Jun 10, 2013, at 5:53 AM, Clay Leeds the.webmaes...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 7, 2013, at 1:45 AM, Chris Bowditch bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Clay, Many thanks for looking into this. Whilst I can't offer an opinion on one solution or the other, I do know this is a problem we need to solve. So I'm +1 for your recommendation. I'll update index.html file to indicate going to http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/[sup-project] for latest updates... The only technical point I would make is that SVN 1.5 is quite old now. We've been using SVN 1.7 for over a year now. Therefore I wouldn't worry about remaining 1.5 compatible, especially given the limitations imposed by 1.5. That's what I thought… While going through the eradication process, I noticed a couple of issues that I'd like address before I can eradicate the xdoc format from the BUILD process (they're intertwined): 1. batik/javadoc/ generation is part of the Batik BUILD process (don't know if the other projects are similar), and eradicating Forrest might also eradicate the step that generates this: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/batik/javadoc/ Is this something I should be concerned about, or are javadocs built at run-time by IDEs (NetBeans, Eclipse, etc.)? 2. There is a file generated at the time of build, that builds the /batik/jarDependImg.png (it's currently missing on the 'Installing Batik' page): http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/batik/install.html I've uploaded the latest available version of the file and am currently waiting for it to show up on the site… 3. *MINOR* There's a note in fop/trunk/build.xml about `distclean`: !-- It would be better to make dist depend on distclean. But as long as the forrest projectInfo plugin depends on a higher Java version (1.5) than we use for the compilation (1.4), leaving it out enables a workaround -- Does this mean we could switch to `distclean`? If so, let me know and I'll make that adjustment! Cheers! Clay - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Getting XML Graphics Documentation into the SOURCE BINARY Releases
On Jun 7, 2013, at 1:45 AM, Chris Bowditch bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Clay, Many thanks for looking into this. Whilst I can't offer an opinion on one solution or the other, I do know this is a problem we need to solve. So I'm +1 for your recommendation. I'll update index.html file to indicate going to http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/[sup-project] for latest updates... The only technical point I would make is that SVN 1.5 is quite old now. We've been using SVN 1.7 for over a year now. Therefore I wouldn't worry about remaining 1.5 compatible, especially given the limitations imposed by 1.5. That's what I thought… While going through the eradication process, I noticed a couple of issues that I'd like address before I can eradicate the xdoc format from the BUILD process (they're intertwined): 1. batik/javadoc/ generation is part of the Batik BUILD process (don't know if the other projects are similar), and eradicating Forrest might also eradicate the step that generates this: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/batik/javadoc/ Is this something I should be concerned about, or are javadocs built at run-time by IDEs (NetBeans, Eclipse, etc.)? 2. There is a file generated at the time of build, that builds the /batik/jarDependImg.png (it's currently missing on the 'Installing Batik' page): http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/batik/install.html I've uploaded the latest available version of the file and am currently waiting for it to show up on the site… 3. *MINOR* There's a note in fop/trunk/build.xml about `distclean`: !-- It would be better to make dist depend on distclean. But as long as the forrest projectInfo plugin depends on a higher Java version (1.5) than we use for the compilation (1.4), leaving it out enables a workaround -- Does this mean we could switch to `distclean`? If so, let me know and I'll make that adjustment! Cheers! Clay - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Getting XML Graphics Documentation into the SOURCE BINARY Releases
Hi Clay, Many thanks for looking into this. Whilst I can't offer an opinion on one solution or the other, I do know this is a problem we need to solve. So I'm +1 for your recommendation. The only technical point I would make is that SVN 1.5 is quite old now. We've been using SVN 1.7 for over a year now. Therefore I wouldn't worry about remaining 1.5 compatible, especially given the limitations imposed by 1.5. Thanks, Chris On 06/06/2013 06:25, Clay Leeds wrote: Hi folks, I hope you're well! I've been investigating how to get our documentation into our Source Binary RELEASEs without requiring the duplicate work of trying to maintain two sets of documentation. I noticed the 'advertisement' from Infra@ plugging their willingness to help projects, and so I reached out, and they recommended `svn:externals`. Before I proceed, I'd like to get your input on how we should proceed, or if anyone has a 'better' idea. I'm leaning toward including the source MarkDown in the distribution via `svn:externals`, perhaps with a README file pointing at the web for better rendering of the docs. Here's a link that discusses including common code in an SVN project: http://tortoisesvn.net/docs/release/TortoiseSVN_en/tsvn-howto-common-projects.html#tsvn-howto-common-externals That page has three recommendations: 1. Use svn:externals 2. Use a nested working copy 3. Use a relative location I won't get into the details on those three recommendations, and I'm sure there are other solutions, but `svn:externals` seems logical and simple. The other two aren't appropriate for one reason or another. In a nutshell, we'd effectively `svn include` the documentation into the respective repos by setting an svn property like this: === SAMPLE - BATIK === $ svn propget svn:externals batik documentation/ //svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/batik/ === === SAMPLE - COMMONS === $ svn propget svn:externals commons documentation/ //svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/commons/ === === SAMPLE - FOP === $ svn propget svn:externals fop documentation/ //svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/fop/ === NOTES: - the above use RELATIVE TO SCHEME PATHS, which require Subversion 1.5+… ABSOLUTE URLs are the Subversion pre-1.5 alternative, which causes issues when switching between HTTP HTTPS - We can't use `svn:externals` for the parent XML Graphics Project, since it is also the parent for Batik, Commons FOP docs, unless we tie it to specific files (which requires Subversion 1.6+). There are other Subversion 1.5+ options for specifying the `svn:externals` PATH (e.g., using RELATIVE or ABSOLUTE paths since their on the same system), but I'm not convinced of the benefits: === SAMPLE - BATIK (ABSOLUTE URL - Subversion pre-1.5) === $ svn propget svn:externals batik documentation/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/batik/ === === SAMPLE - BATIK (ABSOLUTE PATH - Subversion 1.5+) === $ svn propget svn:externals batik documentation//repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/batik/ === === SAMPLE - BATIK (RELATIVE PATH - Subversion 1.5+) === $ svn propget svn:externals batik documentation/../site/trunk/content/batik/ === === SAMPLE - BATIK (RELATIVE TO SCHEME - useful for those accessing via HTTP or HTTPS - Subversion 1.5+) === $ svn propget svn:externals batik documentation/ //svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/batik/ === There is a recommendation that specific revisions are used for `svn:externals`, which helps when you don't have control over the other system. I don't think this is necessary or helpful for TRUNK, although I wonder how tagged branches would be affected… It's possible tagged branches would need a revision to ensure they are STATIC respective to their code/documentation versions. This may require the added step to the RELEASE process of switching the specific Documentation Revision to keep it in sync w CODE. BTW, I did notice that the Batik portion of the documentation is ~330MB. I was going to start with XML Graphics Commons and see how it worked, before I went to FOP and eventually Batik... Warm regards, Clay - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Getting XML Graphics Documentation into the SOURCE BINARY Releases
Hi Clay, you are right, for TRUNK, there is no need to set a specific peg revision. That should be done for TAGs. Note that with tools like Tortoise SVN (win only) the interface gives options to directly set peg revs. 2013/6/6 Clay Leeds the.webmaes...@gmail.com Hi folks, I hope you're well! I've been investigating how to get our documentation into our Source Binary RELEASEs without requiring the duplicate work of trying to maintain two sets of documentation. I noticed the 'advertisement' from Infra@plugging their willingness to help projects, and so I reached out, and they recommended `svn:externals`. Before I proceed, I'd like to get your input on how we should proceed, or if anyone has a 'better' idea. I'm leaning toward including the source MarkDown in the distribution via `svn:externals`, perhaps with a README file pointing at the web for better rendering of the docs. Here's a link that discusses including common code in an SVN project: http://tortoisesvn.net/docs/release/TortoiseSVN_en/tsvn-howto-common-projects.html#tsvn-howto-common-externals That page has three recommendations: 1. Use svn:externals 2. Use a nested working copy 3. Use a relative location I won't get into the details on those three recommendations, and I'm sure there are other solutions, but `svn:externals` seems logical and simple. The other two aren't appropriate for one reason or another. In a nutshell, we'd effectively `svn include` the documentation into the respective repos by setting an svn property like this: === SAMPLE - BATIK === $ svn propget svn:externals batik documentation/// svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/batik/ === === SAMPLE - COMMONS === $ svn propget svn:externals commons documentation/// svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/commons/ === === SAMPLE - FOP === $ svn propget svn:externals fop documentation/// svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/fop/ === NOTES: - the above use RELATIVE TO SCHEME PATHS, which require Subversion 1.5+… ABSOLUTE URLs are the Subversion pre-1.5 alternative, which causes issues when switching between HTTP HTTPS - We can't use `svn:externals` for the parent XML Graphics Project, since it is also the parent for Batik, Commons FOP docs, unless we tie it to specific files (which requires Subversion 1.6+). There are other Subversion 1.5+ options for specifying the `svn:externals` PATH (e.g., using RELATIVE or ABSOLUTE paths since their on the same system), but I'm not convinced of the benefits: === SAMPLE - BATIK (ABSOLUTE URL - Subversion pre-1.5) === $ svn propget svn:externals batik documentation/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/batik/ === === SAMPLE - BATIK (ABSOLUTE PATH - Subversion 1.5+) === $ svn propget svn:externals batik documentation//repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/batik/ === === SAMPLE - BATIK (RELATIVE PATH - Subversion 1.5+) === $ svn propget svn:externals batik documentation/../site/trunk/content/batik/ === === SAMPLE - BATIK (RELATIVE TO SCHEME - useful for those accessing via HTTP or HTTPS - Subversion 1.5+) === $ svn propget svn:externals batik documentation/// svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/site/trunk/content/batik/ === There is a recommendation that specific revisions are used for `svn:externals`, which helps when you don't have control over the other system. I don't think this is necessary or helpful for TRUNK, although I wonder how tagged branches would be affected… It's possible tagged branches would need a revision to ensure they are STATIC respective to their code/documentation versions. This may require the added step to the RELEASE process of switching the specific Documentation Revision to keep it in sync w CODE. BTW, I did notice that the Batik portion of the documentation is ~330MB. I was going to start with XML Graphics Commons and see how it worked, before I went to FOP and eventually Batik... Warm regards, Clay -- pascal
