I agree with you, but IIRC we didn't bundle docs with 2.2.0 and we are
not including docs in the current 2.3.0RC1.
Are we ready to remove the whole 2.2.0 references as soon as we publish
2.3.0 final?
I think we can't support too many versions so I would be happy with
this, and I also think that the trunk site generation could be part of a
continuos integration configuration and could be published even outside
from the official site (e.g: people.apache.org).
What do other thinks about this?
Danny Angus wrote:
I think we should just distribute the docs with the code for all
versions and only publish the current stable version's docs and
publish reports for the trunk
d.
On 27/07/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I still have to study how to correctly publish multiple james versions
(2.2, 2.3, trunk) and how to backport site generation stuff to 2.2 and
2.3 in order to generate correct reports for them.
Maybe I should create a branch for the creation of "Server 2.2" and I
should upgrade the 2.3 branch with the current trunk work about the site
(pom + site folder)
Furthermore what would be the better navigation for this stuff?
I identified this options:
1) Add them in the top bar so that we have:
JAMES Project | Server 2.2 | Server 2.3 | Server Trunk | jSPF | Mime4J
| JSieve
2) Add them in the Server page adding a common menu at the top of the
left column:
http://james.apache.org/server/index.html
Add a menu named "Releases" and including:
"Server 2.2.0"
"Server 2.3.0"
"Server Trunk"
I'm not satisfied by this 2 solutions, because the first is too much
intrusive and in the second it will not be so clear which version you
are browsing.
Maybe I should also create version specific Logos for the server
projects so that the logo will make it more clear.
Any feedback is welcome as I really don't know how to proceed.
Stefano
PS: the reports of the currently deployed 2.3B version are the one from
trunk and not from the 2.3 branch.
