Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.apache.logging |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAPFNckgF-=u-BcgLVLBwpE+TEyA2HS=RgC-TWZV10PNpat-rNg@mail.gmail.com> |
Ralph and others, I was thinking about svnpubsub again. Wouldn't it be possible to have this svnpubsub'ed: /www/logging.apache.org/ While you deploy with site:deploy to /www/logging.apache.org/log4j2 Not sure if it will make any trouble? If this doesn't work my feeling is we have only two options: A) use site:deploy for all logging projects B) make log4j2 using the oldschool process Personally I like site:deploy very much. But of course with a small team: so less work, so better. Cheers Christian On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Brett Porter wrote: > >> >> On 10/02/2012, at 12:36 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >> >>> Hello Infra! >>> >>> At the logging project most sub projects commit generated html to svn. >>> Going live is a matter of "svn up". Guess there is no problem to use >>> svnpubsub. >>> >>> But there is one component (the upcoming log4j 2.0) which has started >>> with mvn site deploy. Is there a recommendation how combine this with >>> svnpubsub? The idea was to deploy to a local folder which is then >>> committed to svn. This would probably mean that a log4j2.0 website >>> update does mean a huge commit because most sources might be touched. >>> Is it a problem? >> >> We've been discussing how to best handle that on the Maven developer's list: http://s.apache.org/maven-site-svn > > Thanks Brett, I saw that thread as it occurred. However, it seems there isn't really any good resolution. It takes me no more than 5 minutes to deploy the site to my user account at p.a.o. Log4j 2 is about 30MB so if Simone's experience correlates I should expect this will become roughly 1 hr and 15 minutes. That won't be tolerable. > > Ralph > -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de