logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Mandatory svnpubsub migration by Jan 2013
Date Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:35:40 GMT
Ralph and others,

I was thinking about svnpubsub again.

Wouldn't it be possible to have this svnpubsub'ed:

While you deploy with site:deploy to

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.


On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> 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


View raw message