Re: Site

Yonik Seeley wrote: > On Jan 23, 2008 12:09 PM, Michael Busch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It doesn't actually work for some of the file types (like > style-sheets) though, so I manually do a dos2unix on those to avoid > extra commits. > Strange... why doesn't it work for style-sheets? -Micha

Re: Site

Site is restored. You probably did the native thing Yonik, but we recently created a new site directory at a higher level (same level as trunk), and that is where the problem is probably at. -Grant On Jan 23, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: On Jan 23, 2008 12:09 PM, Michael Busch <

Re: Site

On Jan 23, 2008 12:09 PM, Michael Busch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Grant, > > thanks for taking care of this! I'm using forrest-0.8. > > Hmm, in your commit it looks like that not only a few lines of each file > were modified, but EVERY line. I built the docs on Windows, so maybe > it's a prob

Re: Site

Hi Grant, thanks for taking care of this! I'm using forrest-0.8. Hmm, in your commit it looks like that not only a few lines of each file were modified, but EVERY line. I built the docs on Windows, so maybe it's a problem with the line endings. I think we should set the eol-style to native for al

Re: Site

OK, I think I fixed it. I think we need to remove the .svn under /www/ l.a.o/java/docs such that the crontab just does it. I made the mistake of doing an svn up on the site directory, when I should have done the export. -Grant On Jan 23, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: I confir

Re: Site

I confirm it is screwed up! Not sure what was done before. Michael, can you fix? Thanks, Grant On Jan 23, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: I think I may have screwed up the site by committing the Apachecon news... Why were there local diffs on the site? -Grant ---

Re: site docs not updated for rev 607350

It is up-to-date now, thanks! On Jan 2, 2008 12:56 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I updated them and I think I fixed the cron checkout script (full > paths to executables in cron scripts are a good thing) > > -Grant > > On Jan 1, 2008, at 5:00 PM, Doron Cohen wrote: > > > Hi, I

Re: site docs not updated for rev 607350

I updated them and I think I fixed the cron checkout script (full paths to executables in cron scripts are a good thing) -Grant On Jan 1, 2008, at 5:00 PM, Doron Cohen wrote: Hi, I changed docs/javadocs.html about 5 days ago (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=607350), but this d

Re: site javadocs link broken

On Dec 28, 2007 5:33 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 28, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Doron Cohen wrote: > > Oh I see, what confused me is that the section and the > > page have almost identical names. Any objection to renaming > > the section to "Javadocs for Official Releases"? > >

Re: site javadocs link broken

Hi Steve, thanks, I missed that thread, now I can see it. Thanks, Doron On Dec 28, 2007 5:17 PM, Steven A Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Doron, > > On 12/28/2007 at 8:33 AM, Doron Cohen wrote: > > It is the trunk Javadocs that are missing for me - I don't see > > the link to Hudson. > [...]

Re: site javadocs link broken

On Dec 28, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Doron Cohen wrote: On Dec 28, 2007 4:17 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That's auto-generated by Forrest, same as on all the other pages. Is kind of silly though, when there is only 1 section. Oh I see, what confused me is that the section and t

RE: site javadocs link broken

Hi Doron, On 12/28/2007 at 8:33 AM, Doron Cohen wrote: > It is the trunk Javadocs that are missing for me - I don't see > the link to Hudson. [...] > In what page do you see a link to > http://lucene.zones.apache.org:8080/hudson/job/Lucene-Nightly/javadoc/index.html?

Re: site javadocs link broken

On Dec 28, 2007 4:17 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's auto-generated by Forrest, same as on all the other pages. Is > kind of silly though, when there is only 1 section. Oh I see, what confused me is that the section and the page have almost identical names. Any objection

Re: site javadocs link broken

That's auto-generated by Forrest, same as on all the other pages. Is kind of silly though, when there is only 1 section. -Grant On Dec 28, 2007, at 9:05 AM, Doron Cohen wrote: Thanks Grant, I see it now, totally missed that thread. Is there a reason to keep the self "javadocs" link in http

Re: site javadocs link broken

Thanks Grant, I see it now, totally missed that thread. Is there a reason to keep the self "javadocs" link in http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/javadocs.html ? On Dec 28, 2007 3:54 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/55471?se

Re: site javadocs link broken

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/55471?search_string=javadocs;#55471 On Dec 28, 2007, at 8:33 AM, Doron Cohen wrote: Hi Steven, It is the trunk Javadocs that are missing for me - I don't see the link to Hudson. Going to the main project page - http://lucene.apache.org/ja

Re: site javadocs link broken

Hi Steven, It is the trunk Javadocs that are missing for me - I don't see the link to Hudson. Going to the main project page - http://lucene.apache.org/java is redirecting to - http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/index.html and then after navigating to - Documentation --> Javadocs there are 4 link

RE: site javadocs link broken

Hi Doron, All of these worked for me when I clicked on them just now from the site: http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_2_0/api/index.html http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_1_0/api/index.html http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_0_0/api/index.html http://lucene.zones.apache.org:8080/hudson/job/Lucene-Nightl

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

Chris Hostetter wrote: I stumbled upon this the other day... http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/java/nightly/ ...i don't know which host it runs on, or whether commiting changes to the nightly.sh will automatically put them into effect (or if it needs checked out somewhere) These are

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

: So, the upshot of this is we should not update docs on the site until : there is a release? Still, I think it would be nice to have a trunk : version hosted somewhere (as has been echoed by others) on the site +1 it sounds like we need to revert the docs at http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

So, the upshot of this is we should not update docs on the site until there is a release? Still, I think it would be nice to have a trunk version hosted somewhere (as has been echoed by others) on the site that could contain the nightly build docs. I can setup the links in the docs if so

RE: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

but i feel like the "default" should be the most bleeding edge stuff so more people can spot mistakes or ask questions about things that are confusing. In my experience, having API reference docs built out of trunk is very uncommon. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it,

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

: 1. Site documentation is generated as part of Lucene build, and is : versioned with Lucene. : 2. Wiki documentation is not versioned with Lucene, and unrelated to the : build. : 3. Improvements to documentation would be nice to have in the public site : (e.g. scoring) even before released. : 4.

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

Things get complicated because of relations/links between javadocs and other documentation. 1. Site documentation is generated as part of Lucene build, and is versioned with Lucene. 2. Wiki documentation is not versioned with Lucene, and unrelated to the build. 3. Improvements to documentation wou

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

Doug Cutting wrote: Actually the've typically been the current release. Hadoop updated its javadocs nightly before its first release, but now they're the current release. Solr may update it's nightly, but then it doesn't yet have any releases. And Nutch and Lucene's hosted javadocs are tradi

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

Yonik Seeley wrote: Yes, the JavaDocs for Lucene, Solr, Hadoop, Nutch are populated during the nightly build process. Actually the've typically been the current release. Hadoop updated its javadocs nightly before its first release, but now they're the current release. Solr may update it's n

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

On 10/30/06, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> i thought there was a cron that took care of doing that on a regular basis? Yes, the JavaDocs for Lucene, Solr, Hadoop, Nutch are populated during the nightly build process. ...perhaps the same cron that does/did the nightly builds? ...

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

> I _believe_ javadocs are for the latest released version (2.0). I thought not, because they are titled "Lucene 2.1-dev API", and also because they contain, e.g., LockFactory, which I think was not in 2.0. - To unsubscribe, e-m

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

: Hmmm, I updated them when I added in scoring docs (I kept the old : directories around, though) and they were based on trunk at the time : I did it. I wasn't aware of them being the latest released version, : but I can restore them to that easily enough. I believe they have allways been based

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

By the looks of http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/ReleaseTodo it should be the latest release.However, this breaks some of the links in the scoring documentation. Shall I revert the javadocs or should I revert the scoring docs or should we just leave things as is for now with the a

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

Hmmm, I updated them when I added in scoring docs (I kept the old directories around, though) and they were based on trunk at the time I did it. I wasn't aware of them being the latest released version, but I can restore them to that easily enough. It might be nice to have two versions of

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

: I _believe_ javadocs are for the latest released version (2.0). No ... they say "Lucene 2.1-dev API" in the title, and where last modified on October 10th ... several post 2.0 things are listed (like Fieldable). Something definitely seems to have gone wrong in teh nightly generation ... but i

Re: site javadocs and resolved issue 678

I _believe_ javadocs are for the latest released version (2.0). Otis - Original Message From: Doron Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 5:03:49 PM Subject: site javadocs and resolved issue 678 I just noticed that current javadocs in h