On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: > I think it was a mistake to generate it and include it in the release vote. > People will focus on this non-release artifact.
Perhaps. But considering that the site will be versioned and archived, it's a secondary artifact of the release and deploying the site is according to the Apache/Maven release best practices. I don't mind if we need to make minor adjustments to the content to make everybody happy; I'd rather pay now than later. If nobody votes against, we can just gather the notes and fix the remaining issues in the next release. Kalle > On May 26, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Kalle Korhonen wrote: > >> Additionally, the static sites will be versioned and archived unlike >> the wiki, where there's in principle just one version of it. >> >> Kalle >> >> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlew...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, its mainly just for the auto-generated reports - much easier to >>> let Maven generate and upload the site automagically than us having to >>> piecemeal it and do each one individually. >>> >>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Kalle Korhonen >>> <kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Why do we generate a static maven site if we have a perfectly good one >>>>> driven by the wiki? >>>> >>>> For javadocs, info & quality reports and since it's simple. >>>> >>>> Kalle >>>> >>> > >
