Em Seg, 2002-09-23 ās 19:37, Andrew Stevens escreveu: > Okay, there's been more negative comments than positive about the files > generated by last night's build, so I'm not releasing those ones. Here's > the comments so we can discuss them (votes, please!)
That's bad :( > > > - We can't release it without samples being part of the > > xdoclet-1.2.0.tar and xdoclet-1.2.0.zip bundles. Please correct the > > build.xml if it doesn't copy samples to target. > > I agree, it should have the jars, docs and samples (and nothing else). Agree. We need the samples to stop people bitching about how to use the @ejb.bean tag or other basic tasks (well, this won't STOP them, but at least will give most people some clue about xdoclet -- specially while we don't finish the docos). > They're a bare-bones copy of the various modules' jars. Generally I > agree, there's not much point in not including the docs etc. I was a bit > surprised just how big a difference that makes, though, especially to the > zip (880K vs 2Meg!) I don't think we need them for beta. These "libs" jars are intended for updates, so the user don't need to download all the docs again. However, as this release isn't just a minor update to 1.1.2, I think we should force people to download the whole bundle, docos and samples included. > It's debatable whether we need to generate one for the beta (I've already > found a bunch of other stuff in need of i18n), but useful for the final > version IMO. No, the beta is the best time to release such files. Then perhaps some people will translate them before the final release (I need to do the pt_BR translation myself). > Also, I noticed a couple of CVS update messages for a fix/improvement to > XDoc.getFirstSentence(); should that be included too? Well, your call. This is not a groundbreaking feature, but is a nice fix/feature that could be included without any side effect. > > We need version numbers for xjavadoc! > > I didn't tag/release xjavadoc & xdocletgui separately 'cos last time I > asked the reply was "Make a big bundle for now. Later we may decide to > make them separate bundles." I think we need at least some version number to make JIRA happy. That way I can fix an issue and set the "fix for version" field. > It wouldn't be too hard to do it, though. > What version should be? 1.0, 1.0-beta, or what? No, no. Let's keep xjavadoc as it is today. The version number is good just to keep track of issue closing. > [Add samples to xdoclet-1.2.0: +1] +1 > [Drop the xdoclet-lib-1.2.0 files: +1] +1 > [Include translate zip in beta: -0] +1 > [Include translate zip in final: +1] +1 > [Remove non-source files from xdoclet-all/src: +1] +1 > [Rename xdoclet-all to xdoclet-src: > +1 if it does only contain source > -0 if it still has the other files] the same > [Rename xdoclet-1.2.0 to xdoclet-bin-1.2.0: +1] +1 > [Include xtags bug fix: +1] +1 > [Include XDoc.getFirstSentence() fix: +1] +1 > [Tag/build xjavadoc separately: +1] +0 > [XJavadoc version: 1.0-beta] 1.2.0-beta1 (to keep synced with xdoclet) > [Tag/build xdocletgui separately: +1] +0 > [Promote xdocletgui & plugin from alpha version no.: +1] +1 for xdocletgui, -1 for >plugin > [Add "beta" to xdoclet's version no.: +1] +1 -- Marcus Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Anime Gaiden ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
