Hi Volkan,
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 22:48, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> I think there is clearly an (objective?) improvement here, granted that old
> URLs still work. If you/others have a different opinion on how shall we
> structure, I am all ears.
If simple web crawlers receive either an HTTP redirect
As I said in my earlier email, I am reserving my opinion on this to see if
anyone objects to any of the reports that we have eliminated. Personally, I
never use them and don’t care that they don’t exist anymore. But if we need to
restore one or more reports we will need the subdirectories back a
The broken URLs are fixed with redirects, doesn't this address your concern?
About "my preferred location"... Let's compare the before-and-after of the
new site structure:
BEFORE:
/log4j-core
/log4j-api
/log4j-foo
/log4j-buzz
/log4j-...
...
/css
/images
/fonts
/performance.html
...
AFTER:
/javad
Hi Volkan,
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 10:27, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>1. Configure the `javadoc-maven-plugin` to output to `//apidocs`
>instead of `/javadoc/`. The reason I am not happy with this
>approach is that it actually was like that since that is how
>`maven-site-plugin` works and
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -- Forwarded message -
> > From: Alexander Brandes
> > Date: Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 9:36 AM
> > Subject: [apache/logging-log4j2] Broken Javadoc URL (Issue #1284)
> > To: apache/logging-log4j2
> > Cc: Subscribed
>
to our directory structure.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Alexander Brandes
> Date: Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 9:36 AM
> Subject: [apache/logging-log4j2] Broken Javadoc URL (Issue #1284)
> To: apache/logging-log4j2
> Cc: Subscribed
>
>
> Hey,
>
&
Subject: [apache/logging-log4j2] Broken Javadoc URL (Issue #1284)
To: apache/logging-log4j2
Cc: Subscribed
Hey,
It appears that a recent changed forced a change of the Javadoc URL from
https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/log4j-api/apidocs/ to
https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/javadoc/log4j-api
