lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Date Wed, 21 Sep 2011 04:37:12 GMT
At one time I had a SVN server set up at work that had a post-commit
hook set up that would generate a static HTML site from the XML doc
files using Sandcastle. So.. It can be done. That was about 3-4 years
ago and I don't work at that company any longer, so I don't have
access to the details of how that was done.

Regarding SVN locations...

Autogenerated XML doc files should go in the ~/trunk/doc/<component>
folders. The Sandcastle generated static HTML should go under
~/site/docs/<version> folders.

I'll see if I can't dig up some info on how to generate static HTML
with Sandcastle.

Thanks,
Troy


On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Michael Herndon
<mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
>>We have a folder /trunk/docs, shouldn't this be the place for that?
>
> We should have a live site for the documentation that people can browse,
> similar to the parent project's site.
> http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_4_0/api/all/index.html. It makes it the
> documentation more accessible.
>
> The rub is that Sandcastle & SHFB generates html files with guid names, xml
> & bin files that map to the html files, and aspx pages which acts as the
> glue. The aspx pages parses the xml/bin files which creates the document
> site.  Thus we're now required to use a server that knows how to serve up
> aspx pages.
>
> If any one knows a way to generate just vanilla html using Sandcastle &
> SHFB, I could just create a folder per version and push the docs to
> incubator site. But so far I haven't found an option for this.
>
> Keeping the generated help docs inside of source would still require for
> users to setup a local website just to view the documentation and it adds
> extra noise in the project.
>
> In the release we can provide a zipped file of the site and a generated .chm
> or even help2/3 files.
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> > We should probably fix the ClsCompliance warnings if they have not
>> already
>> > been fixed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We will have some issues with this - some are marked volatile - which
>> basically have to be a non-CLS compliant type (as far as my research is
>> finding) Anyone have thoughts? I went through and replaced sbyte -> Int16,
>> and uint -> Int64, but I'm having an issue with this, and I don't think
>> removing the volatile keyword is the right solution.
>>
>>
>>
>> > find a place to put the generated documentation.
>>
>>
>> We have a folder /trunk/docs, shouldn't this be the place for that?
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I remember someone mentioning he/she was unable to access a class from
>> > VB.NET. The class had public fields & properties with the same names but
>> > different casing. The fields should be private.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > The link in the readme is a dead link:
>> > http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/docs/2.4.0/ The docs generated by
>> > sandcastle & SHFB require a server that allows aspx files to be executed.
>> > We should either remove the link from the readme or find the docs a new
>> > home and update the link.
>>
>>
>> We should generate new documentation and update the link
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I'll see if I can setup automating Lucene.Net <http://lucene.net> nuget
>> > package creation for trunk in the next day or so.
>> >
>> > - Michael
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hey all seems like we are set with 2.9.4? Feedback has been positive
>> and
>> > > its been quiet. Do we feel ready to vote for a new release?
>> > >
>> > > -Prescott
>> > >
>> > > Sent from my Windows Phone
>>
>

Mime
View raw message