As many of you know, I've been doing a slow burn on switching us over to the new ASF CMS.  I'm finally at a point where I think we are ready, for the most part, so I'd like to propose we make the leap and switch.  I finally had time to figure out a workaround for INFRA-3850 and have released the logjam caused by that blocker in terms of the L&F of the site.

You can see the new site at http://lucene.staging.apache.org/.  I've ported almost all of the existing sites and done a lot to make it look better in terms of getting the CSS right, etc.

The new site is almost dead simple to edit:  

1. svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/cms/trunk cms/trunk
2. svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/cms/build if you wish to build and test locally
a. http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html#local-build for details on building locally.  If you are on a mac, you may need some perl dependencies installed.
b. cd asf-cms
c. ./build_site.pl --target-base=<path to output on local HTTPd server, I use ~/Sites> --source=../trunk/
3.  Edit the files in cms/trunk/content and cms/trunk/templates as you see fit.  When you are satisfied, svn commit.
4. Browse to the staging site to see them live.
5. TBD: publish to the main site.  I'll figure that out when switching and post.

Markdown Reference: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax
CMS Reference:  http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html and http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html

(This info is available on the site at: http://lucene.staging.apache.org/site-instructions.html)

The whole process is 1000x easier than Forrest.  You can even edit via the web using a WYSWIG editor if you so desire.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************
Now, here's the kicker, I'd like to switch to the new sites over this weekend or early next week at the latest and then iterate from there.  I don't have a solution for the Core versioned docs yet, but those can be figured out later.  Presumably we can convert them to markdown at some point before the next release and just maintain pointers to the old versions.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************

So, I'd suggest everyone give it a pass through, fix items as they see them and/or otherwise pitch in and help, because I'm tired of our current site and how poor it makes us look.  

-Grant

On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

>  I'd like to switch to the new sites over this weekend or early next week at the latest

+1 - Thanks for all of you effort on this!

- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------

If you had the faintest clue how very poor my web design skills are,
you'd understand that I'd never stand in the way of an effort like this.

Go for it!

Erick

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>>  I'd like to switch to the new sites over this weekend or early next week at the latest
>
> +1 - Thanks for all of you effort on this!
>
> - Mark Miller
> lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>>  I'd like to switch to the new sites over this weekend or early next week at the latest
>
> +1 - Thanks for all of you effort on this!
>

+1 from me too.

To repeat what I told Grant at the bar the other weekend (this is my opinion):

I think we should just try to do a hard cutover to the new site. The
old one looks like a 1990s geocities website and almost discourages
you from maintaining it in any way. I think if the versioned site
doesn't work correctly, is this really a blocker? For the meantime
couldn't we just temporarily link to the *latest release*?

I think if we tried to get the new website perfect before switching,
we would end out just never cutting over and nitpicking over tons of
stuff that really isn't that important anyway... like we cant see the
forrest for the trees.

--
lucidimagination.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I will miss the forresting, but this is fantastic. Now we can take a chainsaw and kill the forest.

On the news pages the latest items are still missing (it ends with the Java7 disasters).

+1

Uwe
--
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, 28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de

Robert Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>>  I'd like to switch to the new sites over this weekend or early next week at the latest
>
> +1 - Thanks for all of you effort on this!
>

+1 from me too.

To repeat what I told Grant at the bar the other weekend (this is my opinion):

I think we should just try to do a hard cutover to the new site. The
old one looks like a 1990s geocities website and almost discourages
you from maintaining it in any way. I think if the versioned site
doesn't work correctly, is this really a blocker? For the meantime
couldn't we just temporarily link to the *latest release*?

I think if we tried to get the new website perfect before switching,
we would end out just never cutting over and nitpicking over tons of
stuff that really isn't that important anyway... like we cant see the
forrest for the trees.

--
lucidimagination.com

_____________________________________________

On Jan 31, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:

> I will miss the forresting, but this is fantastic. Now we can take a chainsaw and kill the forest.
>
> On the news pages the latest items are still missing (it ends with the Java7 disasters).

Yeah, they need to be updated.  Might be a good opp. for others to fill in a bit. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

> I think we should just try to do a hard cutover to the new site. The
> old one looks like a 1990s geocities website and almost discourages
> you from maintaining it in any way.

I would drop the *almost* from the above...

+1 for the new layout.

Dawid

---------------------------------------------------------------------

2012/1/31 Robert Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> >
> >>  I'd like to switch to the new sites over this weekend or early next
> week at the latest
> >
> > +1 - Thanks for all of you effort on this!
> >
>
> +1 from me too.
>
> To repeat what I told Grant at the bar the other weekend (this is my
> opinion):
>
> I think we should just try to do a hard cutover to the new site. The
> old one looks like a 1990s geocities website and almost discourages
> you from maintaining it in any way.
wow, geocities ... I forgot it existed ...

Big +1 for switching in the next days and tweak it iteratively, and thanks
to Grant for this huge effort.

Tommaso

> I think if the versioned site
> doesn't work correctly, is this really a blocker? For the meantime
> couldn't we just temporarily link to the *latest release*?
>
> I think if we tried to get the new website perfect before switching,
> we would end out just never cutting over and nitpicking over tons of
> stuff that really isn't that important anyway... like we cant see the
> forrest for the trees.
>
> --
> lucidimagination.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

: So, I'd suggest everyone give it a pass through, fix items as they see
: them and/or otherwise pitch in and help, because I'm tired of our
: current site and how poor it makes us look.

Grant: my one concern is how the Solr tutorial currently looks,
particularly related to inline code and bulk code blocks...

http://lucene.staging.apache.org/solr/tutorial.html

to clarify: i think ultimatley the tutorial shouldn't be part of the site
itself, because i think that should remain "unversioned" and the tutorial
should move into "version specific" documentation of some kind (ie: maybe
just a javadoc doc-files or some other file under the solr dev tree). ...
but we can worry about that seperately.

my real concern is that the tutorial serves as a good indicator of how
inline and block code elements seem to be handled by the new CMS markup
and our templates -- and that worries me for our ability to move
forward writing docs/news/examples in the CMS given how poorly it seems to
be handled in the tutorial right now.

places where there should be inlined 'code' in a fixed width
font, ie...

> Begin by unziping the Solr release and changing your working directory
> to be the "<code>example</code>" directory.  (Note that the base
> directory name may vary with the version of Solr downloaded.)  For
> example, with a shell in UNIX, Cygwin, or MacOS:
 
...is instead showing up as indented code blocks with a colored
background.

Meanwhile, places where there should be indented code blocks with a
colored background...

<source>
user:~solr$ *ls*
solr-nightly.zip
user:~solr$ *unzip -q solr-nightly.zip*
user:~solr$ *cd solr-nightly/example/*
</source>

...is showing up as a single line of text in a regular variable width
font.

I don't know if the problem is:
 * the markup processing engine
 * our use of the markup
 * our templates
 * our css

...but it seems like we should figure that out.

-Hoss

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading up a bit on markdown, and poking arround the generated html and
the css we are using i *think* (assuming i understand everything
correctly) we have two problems...

: places where there should be inlined 'code' in a fixed width
: font, ie...

...this looks like CSS problem.  Our CSS is assuming any <code> tags
should be treated as block elements which makes it impossible to have
inline code quoting.  we should probably change most of the "code" css to
use the "pre > code" since that's what the markdown docs i'm looking at
say markdown generates for code blocks.

Which leads me to the second problem...

: Meanwhile, places where there should be indented code blocks with a
: colored background...

...that looks like a content problem.  we seem to be using "<source>" as
the markup for our code blocks, but the markdown docs i'm finding say thta
"4 whitespcae characters of indentation" should be used for code blocks.  
(i suspect the <source> tags are left over from the forrest conversion)
...does that sound right to you Grant?
-Hoss

---------------------------------------------------------------------

: inline code quoting.  we should probably change most of the "code" css to
: use the "pre > code" since that's what the markdown docs i'm looking at
: say markdown generates for code blocks.
...
: ...that looks like a content problem.  we seem to be using "<source>" as
: the markup for our code blocks, but the markdown docs i'm finding say thta
: "4 whitespcae characters of indentation" should be used for code blocks.  

Huh...

* markdown docs say 4 space indenting will create a <pre><code> block
* preview in the WMD editor shows 4 space intenting creating a <pre><code>
block
* after saving those changes, the staging site shows much more complex
html using <div class="codehilite"><pre> containing little span tags for
each indivdual word.  if you then view this html in the CMS "browse" page
(ie: where the bookmarklet taks you so you can click the edit button) then
those individual spans get individual color coding from
https://cms.apache.org/css/code.css

...not sure if we want any of that, or if we should just decide to use
<pre><code> tags explicitly ourself (downside: then we have to do our own
HTML escaping; upside: then we can use tags like <b> in our code which
markdown's "4 space" markup auto escapes for us to be helpful)
-Hoss

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Chris Hostetter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : So, I'd suggest everyone give it a pass through, fix items as they see
> : them and/or otherwise pitch in and help, because I'm tired of our
> : current site and how poor it makes us look.
>
> Grant: my one concern is how the Solr tutorial currently looks,
> particularly related to inline code and bulk code blocks...
>
> http://lucene.staging.apache.org/solr/tutorial.html

The solr tutorial represents 20% of page hits across the entire
lucene.apache.org domain.... more than 2000 views per day.
However it should be fixed, lets fix it!

-Yonik
lucidimagination.com
> to clarify: i think ultimatley the tutorial shouldn't be part of the site
> itself, because i think that should remain "unversioned" and the tutorial
> should move into "version specific" documentation of some kind (ie: maybe
> just a javadoc doc-files or some other file under the solr dev tree). ...
> but we can worry about that seperately.
>
> my real concern is that the tutorial serves as a good indicator of how
> inline and block code elements seem to be handled by the new CMS markup
> and our templates -- and that worries me for our ability to move
> forward writing docs/news/examples in the CMS given how poorly it seems to
> be handled in the tutorial right now.
>
> places where there should be inlined 'code' in a fixed width
> font, ie...
>
>> Begin by unziping the Solr release and changing your working directory
>> to be the "<code>example</code>" directory.  (Note that the base
>> directory name may vary with the version of Solr downloaded.)  For
>> example, with a shell in UNIX, Cygwin, or MacOS:
>
> ...is instead showing up as indented code blocks with a colored
> background.
>
> Meanwhile, places where there should be indented code blocks with a
> colored background...
>
> <source>
> user:~solr$ *ls*
> solr-nightly.zip
> user:~solr$ *unzip -q solr-nightly.zip*
> user:~solr$ *cd solr-nightly/example/*
> </source>
>
> ...is showing up as a single line of text in a regular variable width
> font.
>
> I don't know if the problem is:
>  * the markup processing engine
>  * our use of the markup
>  * our templates
>  * our css
>
> ...but it seems like we should figure that out.
>
>
>
> -Hoss
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Feb 1, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Chris Hostetter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : So, I'd suggest everyone give it a pass through, fix items as they see
>> : them and/or otherwise pitch in and help, because I'm tired of our
>> : current site and how poor it makes us look.
>>
>> Grant: my one concern is how the Solr tutorial currently looks,
>> particularly related to inline code and bulk code blocks...
>>
>> http://lucene.staging.apache.org/solr/tutorial.html
>
> The solr tutorial represents 20% of page hits across the entire
> lucene.apache.org domain.... more than 2000 views per day.
> However it should be fixed, lets fix it!

Working on it.  Note, Markdown allows for the regular use of HTML: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#html

-Grant

: Working on it.  Note, Markdown allows for the regular use of HTML:
: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#html

right ... hence my question of how we *want* to fix it, given that we have
a lot more options for doing things in markdown then we had with forrest
... we almost need a "formatting & style guide" for the site to keep
consistent.
-Hoss

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I pushed some changes.

On Feb 1, 2012, at 1:56 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:

>
> : Working on it.  Note, Markdown allows for the regular use of HTML:
> : http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#html
>
> right ... hence my question of how we *want* to fix it, given that we have
> a lot more options for doing things in markdown then we had with forrest
> ... we almost need a "formatting & style guide" for the site to keep
> consistent.
>
>
> -Hoss
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

+1, looks much more inviting for everyone! Great work.

Minors:
* Enlarge the search box so the full text "Search with Apache Solr..." is visible. Hey, it's the home page of the world's best search engine, search should be prominent - so why not make the search box muuuch wider and add AutoComplete.
* Why is the search automatically constrained to the "Lucene-Core" project, even when searching from /solr/? If I am at Solr home page and search "tutorial", the first hit should be the Solr tutorial, not the Lucene one.

--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com

On 31. jan. 2012, at 20:38, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> As many of you know, I've been doing a slow burn on switching us over to the new ASF CMS.  I'm finally at a point where I think we are ready, for the most part, so I'd like to propose we make the leap and switch.  I finally had time to figure out a workaround for INFRA-3850 and have released the logjam caused by that blocker in terms of the L&F of the site.
>
> You can see the new site at http://lucene.staging.apache.org/.  I've ported almost all of the existing sites and done a lot to make it look better in terms of getting the CSS right, etc.
>
> The new site is almost dead simple to edit:  
>
> 1. svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/cms/trunk cms/trunk
> 2. svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/cms/build if you wish to build and test locally
> a. http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html#local-build for details on building locally.  If you are on a mac, you may need some perl dependencies installed.
> b. cd asf-cms
> c. ./build_site.pl --target-base=<path to output on local HTTPd server, I use ~/Sites> --source=../trunk/
> 3.  Edit the files in cms/trunk/content and cms/trunk/templates as you see fit.  When you are satisfied, svn commit.
> 4. Browse to the staging site to see them live.
> 5. TBD: publish to the main site.  I'll figure that out when switching and post.
>
> Markdown Reference: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax
> CMS Reference:  http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html and http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html
>
> (This info is available on the site at: http://lucene.staging.apache.org/site-instructions.html)
>
> The whole process is 1000x easier than Forrest.  You can even edit via the web using a WYSWIG editor if you so desire.
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************
> Now, here's the kicker, I'd like to switch to the new sites over this weekend or early next week at the latest and then iterate from there.  I don't have a solution for the Core versioned docs yet, but those can be figured out later.  Presumably we can convert them to markdown at some point before the next release and just maintain pointers to the old versions.
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************
>
> So, I'd suggest everyone give it a pass through, fix items as they see them and/or otherwise pitch in and help, because I'm tired of our current site and how poor it makes us look.  
>
> -Grant
>
>
>
>

On Jan 31, 2012, at 7:34 PM, Jan Høydahl wrote:

> +1, looks much more inviting for everyone! Great work.
>
> Minors:
> * Enlarge the search box so the full text "Search with Apache Solr..." is visible. Hey, it's the home page of the world's best search engine, search should be prominent - so why not make the search box muuuch wider and add AutoComplete.

See below :-)  Have at it.  Most of the search site stuff is in the templates directory.

> * Why is the search automatically constrained to the "Lucene-Core" project, even when searching from /solr/? If I am at Solr home page and search "tutorial", the first hit should be the Solr tutorial, not the Lucene one.

That's probably a copy paste error or a templating error.

>
> --
> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
> Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com
>
> On 31. jan. 2012, at 20:38, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>> As many of you know, I've been doing a slow burn on switching us over to the new ASF CMS.  I'm finally at a point where I think we are ready, for the most part, so I'd like to propose we make the leap and switch.  I finally had time to figure out a workaround for INFRA-3850 and have released the logjam caused by that blocker in terms of the L&F of the site.
>>
>> You can see the new site at http://lucene.staging.apache.org/.  I've ported almost all of the existing sites and done a lot to make it look better in terms of getting the CSS right, etc.
>>
>> The new site is almost dead simple to edit:  
>>
>> 1. svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/cms/trunk cms/trunk
>> 2. svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/cms/build if you wish to build and test locally
>> a. http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html#local-build for details on building locally.  If you are on a mac, you may need some perl dependencies installed.
>> b. cd asf-cms
>> c. ./build_site.pl --target-base=<path to output on local HTTPd server, I use ~/Sites> --source=../trunk/
>> 3.  Edit the files in cms/trunk/content and cms/trunk/templates as you see fit.  When you are satisfied, svn commit.
>> 4. Browse to the staging site to see them live.
>> 5. TBD: publish to the main site.  I'll figure that out when switching and post.
>>
>> Markdown Reference: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax
>> CMS Reference:  http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html and http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html
>>
>> (This info is available on the site at: http://lucene.staging.apache.org/site-instructions.html)
>>
>> The whole process is 1000x easier than Forrest.  You can even edit via the web using a WYSWIG editor if you so desire.
>>
>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************
>> Now, here's the kicker, I'd like to switch to the new sites over this weekend or early next week at the latest and then iterate from there.  I don't have a solution for the Core versioned docs yet, but those can be figured out later.  Presumably we can convert them to markdown at some point before the next release and just maintain pointers to the old versions.
>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************
>>
>> So, I'd suggest everyone give it a pass through, fix items as they see them and/or otherwise pitch in and help, because I'm tired of our current site and how poor it makes us look.  
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

--------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

+1 to new site (though... and maybe this is due to me using an outdated T42 ThinkPad now, the top part of the page feels very bulky, but maybe people are OK with that)

+1 to everything Jan wrote - he read my mind....transatlantic.

Otis

>________________________________
> From: Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] New Website
>
>
>
>
>On Jan 31, 2012, at 7:34 PM, Jan Høydahl wrote:
>
>+1, looks much more inviting for everyone! Great work.
>>
>>
>>Minors:
>>* Enlarge the search box so the full text "Search with Apache Solr..." is visible. Hey, it's the home page of the world's best search engine, search should be prominent - so why not make the search box muuuch wider and add AutoComplete.
>
>
>See below :-)  Have at it.  Most of the search site stuff is in the templates directory.
>
>* Why is the search automatically constrained to the "Lucene-Core" project, even when searching from /solr/? If I am at Solr home page and search "tutorial", the first hit should be the Solr tutorial, not the Lucene one.
>
>
>That's probably a copy paste error or a templating error.
>
>
>>
>>--
>>Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>>Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>>Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com
>>
>>On 31. jan. 2012, at 20:38, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>
>>As many of you know, I've been doing a slow burn on switching us over to the new ASF CMS.  I'm finally at a point where I think we are ready, for the most part, so I'd like to propose we make the leap and switch.  I finally had time to figure out a workaround for INFRA-3850 and have released the logjam caused by that blocker in terms of the L&F of the site.
>>>
>>>
>>>You can see the new site at http://lucene.staging.apache.org/.  I've ported almost all of the existing sites and done a lot to make it look better in terms of getting the CSS right, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>The new site is almost dead simple to edit:  
>>>
>>>
>>>1. svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/cms/trunk cms/trunk
>>>2. svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/cms/build if you wish to build and test locally
>>>a. http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html#local-build for details on building locally.  If you are on a mac, you may need some perl dependencies installed.
>>>b. cd asf-cms
>>>c. ./build_site.pl --target-base=<path to output on local HTTPd server, I use ~/Sites> --source=../trunk/
>>>3.  Edit the files in cms/trunk/content and cms/trunk/templates as you see fit.  When you are satisfied, svn commit.
>>>4. Browse to the staging site to see them live.
>>>5. TBD: publish to the main site.  I'll figure that out when switching and post.
>>>
>>>
>>>Markdown Reference: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax
>>>CMS Reference:  http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html and http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html
>>>
>>>
>>>(This info is available on the site at: http://lucene.staging.apache.org/site-instructions.html)
>>>
>>>
>>>The whole process is 1000x easier than Forrest.  You can even edit via the web using a WYSWIG editor if you so desire.
>>>
>>>
>>>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************
>>>Now, here's the kicker, I'd like to switch to the new sites over this weekend or early next week at the latest and then iterate from there.  I don't have a solution for the Core versioned docs yet, but those can be figured out later.  Presumably we can convert them to markdown at some point before the next release and just maintain pointers to the old versions.
>>>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************
>>>
>>>
>>>So, I'd suggest everyone give it a pass through, fix items as they see them and/or otherwise pitch in and help, because I'm tired of our current site and how poor it makes us look.  
>>>
>>>
>>>-Grant
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>--------------------------------------------
>Grant Ingersoll
>http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

Wow this is impressive!
> so I'd like to propose we make the leap and switch.
>

+ 1

The new site is almost dead simple to edit:
> ...
> The whole process is 1000x easier than Forrest.  You can even edit via the
> web using a WYSWIG editor if you so desire.
>

This by itself is a major reason to move.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************
> Now, here's the kicker, I'd like to switch to the new sites over this
> weekend or early next week at the latest and then iterate from there.  I
> don't have a solution for the Core versioned docs yet, but those can be
> figured out later.  Presumably we can convert them to markdown at some
> point before the next release and just maintain pointers to the old
> versions.
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************
>

Like others said, we can handle this later.

Minor comments for now:
- The "Lucene" icon at top left still links to old site
- Page icon (shown in the address bar) is that of Solr - should be that of
Lucene.

Thanks for doing this!
Doron

PS I guess it is me to blame not the new site - that somewhat grayed-out
text is harder to read - but there are many modern sites like this so will
have to learn to live with it.

On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:32 AM, Doron Cohen wrote:

> Wow this is impressive!
>  
> so I'd like to propose we make the leap and switch.
>
> + 1
>
> The new site is almost dead simple to edit:  
> ...
> The whole process is 1000x easier than Forrest.  You can even edit via the web using a WYSWIG editor if you so desire.
>
> This by itself is a major reason to move.
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************
> Now, here's the kicker, I'd like to switch to the new sites over this weekend or early next week at the latest and then iterate from there.  I don't have a solution for the Core versioned docs yet, but those can be figured out later.  Presumably we can convert them to markdown at some point before the next release and just maintain pointers to the old versions.
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************
>
> Like others said, we can handle this later.
>
> Minor comments for now:
> - The "Lucene" icon at top left still links to old site

Yeah, it links to lucene.a.o, so it will be proper once it goes live.

> - Page icon (shown in the address bar) is that of Solr - should be that of Lucene.

?

>
> Thanks for doing this!
> Doron
>
> PS I guess it is me to blame not the new site - that somewhat grayed-out text is harder to read - but there are many modern sites like this so will have to learn to live with it.
Clarification please?

--------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

HI Grant,

> - Page icon (shown in the address bar) is that of Solr - should be that of
> Lucene.
>
> ?
>

I meant this little icon: (hope it will show in the email to the list, if
not I can send you privately).
[image: image.png]
> PS I guess it is me to blame not the new site - that somewhat grayed-out
> text is harder to read - but there are many modern sites like this so will
> have to learn to live with it.
>
>
> Clarification please?
>
>
I wished to make a too big deal of it...   the text I see (tried 3
browsers) is a bit Gray (or faded), and I rather read a page with more
contrast between the text and the background, more clear to my eyes this
way, but this is just my personal preference, it seems others do not feel
that way, so I'm okay with this.  Hopefully this is more clear now?

Doron

>
> - Page icon (shown in the address bar) is that of Solr - should be that of
>> Lucene.
>>
>> ?
>>
>
> I meant this little icon: (hope it will show in the email to the list, if
> not I can send you privately).
>

That icon comes from here:
http://lucene.staging.apache.org/images/favicon.ico

ah, yes, the favicon.  Easily fixable.  Not sure if Lucene has a favicon.

On Feb 1, 2012, at 7:19 AM, Doron Cohen wrote:

>> - Page icon (shown in the address bar) is that of Solr - should be that of Lucene.
> ?
>
> I meant this little icon: (hope it will show in the email to the list, if not I can send you privately).
>
> That icon comes from here:  http://lucene.staging.apache.org/images/favicon.ico

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Doron Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> HI Grant,
>
>> PS I guess it is me to blame not the new site - that somewhat grayed-out
>> text is harder to read - but there are many modern sites like this so will
>> have to learn to live with it.
>>
>>
>> Clarification please?
>>
>>
> I wished to make a too big deal of it...   the text I see (tried 3
> browsers) is a bit Gray (or faded), and I rather read a page with more
> contrast between the text and the background, more clear to my eyes this
> way, but this is just my personal preference, it seems others do not feel
> that way, so I'm okay with this.  Hopefully this is more clear now?
>

Sorry for the spam, I meant to write "I wished not to make a too big deal
of it... "

OK, will see what I can do.

On Feb 1, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Doron Cohen wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Doron Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HI Grant,
>> PS I guess it is me to blame not the new site - that somewhat grayed-out text is harder to read - but there are many modern sites like this so will have to learn to live with it.
>
>
> Clarification please?
>
>
> I wished to make a too big deal of it...   the text I see (tried 3 browsers) is a bit Gray (or faded), and I rather read a page with more contrast between the text and the background, more clear to my eyes this way, but this is just my personal preference, it seems others do not feel that way, so I'm okay with this.  Hopefully this is more clear now?
>
> Sorry for the spam, I meant to write "I wished not to make a too big deal of it... "
>

On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Doron Cohen wrote:

> the text I see (tried 3 browsers) is a bit Gray (or faded), and I rather read a page with more contrast between the text and the background, more clear to my eyes this way, but this is just my personal preference, it seems others do not feel that way, so I'm okay with this.  Hopefully this is more clear now?

I agree. The body text is tiny and low contrast. Poor accessibility for anyone with low vision, including normal aging.

Compare to the current site, which isn't large body text by any measure, but is bigger and full-contrast.

Personally, I'd go with a serif font, but that is mostly preference. Letterforms are more differentiated with serifs, so it is just less work to read.

wunder
--
Walter Underwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Will try to address it.  Patches welcome ;-)  

Busy brushing off my CSS skills...

On Feb 1, 2012, at 11:13 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:

> On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Doron Cohen wrote:
>
>> the text I see (tried 3 browsers) is a bit Gray (or faded), and I rather read a page with more contrast between the text and the background, more clear to my eyes this way, but this is just my personal preference, it seems others do not feel that way, so I'm okay with this.  Hopefully this is more clear now?
>
> I agree. The body text is tiny and low contrast. Poor accessibility for anyone with low vision, including normal aging.
>
> Compare to the current site, which isn't large body text by any measure, but is bigger and full-contrast.
>
> Personally, I'd go with a serif font, but that is mostly preference. Letterforms are more differentiated with serifs, so it is just less work to read.
>
> wunder
> --
> Walter Underwood
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>

--------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Ahem! Are we talking "over 40 fonts" here? It's a sad fact that I've
been noticing
over the last few years that the screen is getting harder to read... Living long
enough to have that problem beats the alternative though...

Erick

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Doron Cohen wrote:
>
> the text I see (tried 3 browsers) is a bit Gray (or faded), and I rather
> read a page with more contrast between the text and the background, more
> clear to my eyes this way, but this is just my personal preference, it seems
> others do not feel that way, so I'm okay with this.  Hopefully this is more
> clear now?
>
>
> I agree. The body text is tiny and low contrast. Poor accessibility for
> anyone with low vision, including normal aging.
>
> Compare to the current site, which isn't large body text by any measure, but
> is bigger and full-contrast.
>
> Personally, I'd go with a serif font, but that is mostly preference.
> Letterforms are more differentiated with serifs, so it is just less work to
> read.
>
> wunder
> --
> Walter Underwood
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Time to buy this as your monitor, Erick:
http://www.gizmag.com/go/6704/

:)

Dawid

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Erick Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ahem! Are we talking "over 40 fonts" here? It's a sad fact that I've
> been noticing
> over the last few years that the screen is getting harder to read... Living long
> enough to have that problem beats the alternative though...
>
> Erick
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Doron Cohen wrote:
>>
>> the text I see (tried 3 browsers) is a bit Gray (or faded), and I rather
>> read a page with more contrast between the text and the background, more
>> clear to my eyes this way, but this is just my personal preference, it seems
>> others do not feel that way, so I'm okay with this.  Hopefully this is more
>> clear now?
>>
>>
>> I agree. The body text is tiny and low contrast. Poor accessibility for
>> anyone with low vision, including normal aging.
>>
>> Compare to the current site, which isn't large body text by any measure, but
>> is bigger and full-contrast.
>>
>> Personally, I'd go with a serif font, but that is mostly preference.
>> Letterforms are more differentiated with serifs, so it is just less work to
>> read.
>>
>> wunder
>> --
>> Walter Underwood
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I increased the font size and made it darker.  I also updated the tutorial.  Time for me to do other things until this weekend when I'm going to cut over, so if you have stuff you don't like before we cut over, see instructions below.  This weekend, I will bring in the old versioned docs as well as port over the .htaccess stuff and add in redirects for the lucene/java stuff to be lucene/core.

If someone could update the news to be current, that would be much appreciated.
On Feb 1, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:

> Ahem! Are we talking "over 40 fonts" here? It's a sad fact that I've
> been noticing
> over the last few years that the screen is getting harder to read... Living long
> enough to have that problem beats the alternative though...
>
> Erick
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Doron Cohen wrote:
>>
>> the text I see (tried 3 browsers) is a bit Gray (or faded), and I rather
>> read a page with more contrast between the text and the background, more
>> clear to my eyes this way, but this is just my personal preference, it seems
>> others do not feel that way, so I'm okay with this.  Hopefully this is more
>> clear now?
>>
>>
>> I agree. The body text is tiny and low contrast. Poor accessibility for
>> anyone with low vision, including normal aging.
>>
>> Compare to the current site, which isn't large body text by any measure, but
>> is bigger and full-contrast.
>>
>> Personally, I'd go with a serif font, but that is mostly preference.
>> Letterforms are more differentiated with serifs, so it is just less work to
>> read.
>>
>> wunder
>> --
>> Walter Underwood
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

--------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

FYI: Forrest to Markdown: http://forrest.apache.org/pluginDocs/plugins_0_80/org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.Markdown/

-Grant

On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> I increased the font size and made it darker.  I also updated the tutorial.  Time for me to do other things until this weekend when I'm going to cut over, so if you have stuff you don't like before we cut over, see instructions below.  This weekend, I will bring in the old versioned docs as well as port over the .htaccess stuff and add in redirects for the lucene/java stuff to be lucene/core.
>
> If someone could update the news to be current, that would be much appreciated.
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
>
>> Ahem! Are we talking "over 40 fonts" here? It's a sad fact that I've
>> been noticing
>> over the last few years that the screen is getting harder to read... Living long
>> enough to have that problem beats the alternative though...
>>
>> Erick
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Doron Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>> the text I see (tried 3 browsers) is a bit Gray (or faded), and I rather
>>> read a page with more contrast between the text and the background, more
>>> clear to my eyes this way, but this is just my personal preference, it seems
>>> others do not feel that way, so I'm okay with this.  Hopefully this is more
>>> clear now?
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. The body text is tiny and low contrast. Poor accessibility for
>>> anyone with low vision, including normal aging.
>>>
>>> Compare to the current site, which isn't large body text by any measure, but
>>> is bigger and full-contrast.
>>>
>>> Personally, I'd go with a serif font, but that is mostly preference.
>>> Letterforms are more differentiated with serifs, so it is just less work to
>>> read.
>>>
>>> wunder
>>> --
>>> Walter Underwood
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>

We are now live!

http://lucene.apache.org/

On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> I increased the font size and made it darker.  I also updated the tutorial.  Time for me to do other things until this weekend when I'm going to cut over, so if you have stuff you don't like before we cut over, see instructions below.  This weekend, I will bring in the old versioned docs as well as port over the .htaccess stuff and add in redirects for the lucene/java stuff to be lucene/core.
>
> If someone could update the news to be current, that would be much appreciated.
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
>
>> Ahem! Are we talking "over 40 fonts" here? It's a sad fact that I've
>> been noticing
>> over the last few years that the screen is getting harder to read... Living long
>> enough to have that problem beats the alternative though...
>>
>> Erick
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Doron Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>> the text I see (tried 3 browsers) is a bit Gray (or faded), and I rather
>>> read a page with more contrast between the text and the background, more
>>> clear to my eyes this way, but this is just my personal preference, it seems
>>> others do not feel that way, so I'm okay with this.  Hopefully this is more
>>> clear now?
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. The body text is tiny and low contrast. Poor accessibility for
>>> anyone with low vision, including normal aging.
>>>
>>> Compare to the current site, which isn't large body text by any measure, but
>>> is bigger and full-contrast.
>>>
>>> Personally, I'd go with a serif font, but that is mostly preference.
>>> Letterforms are more differentiated with serifs, so it is just less work to
>>> read.
>>>
>>> wunder
>>> --
>>> Walter Underwood
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>

--------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

: We are now live!
:
: http://lucene.apache.org/

FYI: Grant had put in a redirect for dealing with the /java/ -> /core/
directory change, but forgot that a bunch of page names and urls had
changed slightly as well.

as you have probably noticed based on all the commits, i scrambled to try
and ensure that we had redirects for as many old URLs as i could think of
and/or find in google searches using "site:lucene.apache.org"

I think we've got most stuff covered now, with the exception of...

 - *.pdf ... i figure just let those 404 from now on.
 - http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/.*

...the core javadocs from past releases are all still there (with a
redirect to the new subdir) but as far as i can tell the Solr javadocs
have vanished ... i have no idea back a big directory like that now.
-Hoss

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Feb 6, 2012, at 7:51 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:

>
> : We are now live!
> :
> : http://lucene.apache.org/
>
> FYI: Grant had put in a redirect for dealing with the /java/ -> /core/
> directory change, but forgot that a bunch of page names and urls had
> changed slightly as well.
>
> as you have probably noticed based on all the commits, i scrambled to try
> and ensure that we had redirects for as many old URLs as i could think of
> and/or find in google searches using "site:lucene.apache.org"
>
> I think we've got most stuff covered now, with the exception of...
>
> - *.pdf ... i figure just let those 404 from now on.
> - http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/.*

Yeah, I don't think we need those.

>
> ...the core javadocs from past releases are all still there (with a
> redirect to the new subdir) but as far as i can tell the Solr javadocs
> have vanished ... i have no idea back a big directory like that now.

Those should be back now.

>
>
> -Hoss
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

--------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

On 02/06/2012 07:37 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> On Feb 6, 2012, at 7:51 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
>>
>> : We are now live!
>> :
>> : http://lucene.apache.org/
>>
>> FYI: Grant had put in a redirect for dealing with the /java/ -> /core/
>> directory change, but forgot that a bunch of page names and urls had
>> changed slightly as well.
>>
>> as you have probably noticed based on all the commits, i scrambled to
>> try
>> and ensure that we had redirects for as many old URLs as i could
>> think of
>> and/or find in google searches using "site:lucene.apache.org"
>>
>> I think we've got most stuff covered now, with the exception of...
>>
>> - *.pdf ... i figure just let those 404 from now on.
>> - http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/.*
>
> Yeah, I don't think we need those.
>
>>
>> ...the core javadocs from past releases are all still there (with a
>> redirect to the new subdir) but as far as i can tell the Solr javadocs
>> have vanished ... i have no idea back a big directory like that now.
>
> Those should be back now.
>
>>
>>
>> -Hoss
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
It appears the text at the bottom of this page got clipped a bit in Firefox.

http://lucene.apache.org/core/

I'll fix it, though I'm not sure if I could commit it.

--
Joe Cabrera

Hi Grant,

 

The redirect from java -> core does not yet work. If I search for "Lucene"
on Google the first hit goes to /java/ and I finally get. - 404.

 

What's needed to fix this?

 

-----

Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

 <http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] New Website

 

 

On Feb 6, 2012, at 7:51 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: We are now live!
:
: http://lucene.apache.org/

FYI: Grant had put in a redirect for dealing with the /java/ -> /core/
directory change, but forgot that a bunch of page names and urls had
changed slightly as well.

as you have probably noticed based on all the commits, i scrambled to try
and ensure that we had redirects for as many old URLs as i could think of
and/or find in google searches using "site:lucene.apache.org"

I think we've got most stuff covered now, with the exception of...

- *.pdf ... i figure just let those 404 from now on.
- http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/.*

 

Yeah, I don't think we need those.
...the core javadocs from past releases are all still there (with a
redirect to the new subdir) but as far as i can tell the Solr javadocs
have vanished ... i have no idea back a big directory like that now.

 

Those should be back now.

-Hoss

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

--------------------------------------------

Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

 

 

 

Grant; did you miss my JIRA issue to add the book info?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3096

~ David

-----
 Author: http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book
--
View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-New-Website-tp3704403p3721786.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Feb 7, 2012, at 2:11 AM, David Smiley (@MITRE.org) wrote:

> Grant; did you miss my JIRA issue to add the book info?
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3096

I missed that.  Feel free to fix once you get your account, as my week is booked solid and the amount of time I have for updates at this point is minimal.  

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, I put instructions on how to do all of this at http://lucene.apache.org/site-instructions.html.  

Hmm...just noticed that the first hit when you google lucene is http://lucene.apache.org/java/

But that no longer points anywhere... (404).

Perhaps we should try and plug in a redirect or something?

- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ugh, where did our redirect go?

On Feb 7, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Mark Miller wrote:

> Hmm...just noticed that the first hit when you google lucene is http://lucene.apache.org/java/
>
> But that no longer points anywhere... (404).
>
> Perhaps we should try and plug in a redirect or something?
>
> - Mark Miller
> lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

? When I follow the link, the redirect works for me (-> core/ I mean)

From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] New Website

Ugh, where did our redirect go?

On Feb 7, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
Hmm...just noticed that the first hit when you google lucene is http://lucene.apache.org/java/

But that no longer points anywhere... (404).

Perhaps we should try and plug in a redirect or something?

- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com<http://lucidimagination.com>


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Not from Europe, maybe thats different?

 

-----

Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

 <http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

From: Steven A Rowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 6:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] New Website

 

? When I follow the link, the redirect works for me (-> core/ I mean)

 

From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] New Website

 

Ugh, where did our redirect go?

 

On Feb 7, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
Hmm...just noticed that the first hit when you google lucene is http://lucene.apache.org/java/

But that no longer points anywhere... (404).

Perhaps we should try and plug in a redirect or something?

- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Oh, it only works with a trailing slash – without it, I get a 404

From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] New Website

Ugh, where did our redirect go?

On Feb 7, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
Hmm...just noticed that the first hit when you google lucene is http://lucene.apache.org/java/

But that no longer points anywhere... (404).

Perhaps we should try and plug in a redirect or something?

- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com<http://lucidimagination.com>


---------------------------------------------------------------------

I get 404 in both cases (with and without trailing slash). There are also links with /java/index.html

 

-----

Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

 <http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

From: Steven A Rowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 6:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] New Website

 

Oh, it only works with a trailing slash – without it, I get a 404

 

From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] New Website

 

Ugh, where did our redirect go?

 

On Feb 7, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
Hmm...just noticed that the first hit when you google lucene is http://lucene.apache.org/java/

But that no longer points anywhere... (404).

Perhaps we should try and plug in a redirect or something?

- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

: I get 404 in both cases (with and without trailing slash). There are also links with /java/index.html

this should be fixed .. the redirect to deal with the versioned docs broke
the simple case of just "/java"
-Hoss

---------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a couple of more 404 cases caused by missing png files namely:

/images/home-wrapper.png , /images/footer.png from
http://lucene.apache.org/core/ and
/images/quote.jpg from http://lucene.apache.org/solr/

I'm not sure on this but because of the missing footer.png this might me
happening - http://imgur.com/qZ43s .
I posted a small one line patch on LUCENE-3810 too which was causing text
alignment problems.

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Chris Hostetter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> : I get 404 in both cases (with and without trailing slash). There are
> also links with /java/index.html
>
> this should be fixed .. the redirect to deal with the versioned docs broke
> the simple case of just "/java"
>
>
> -Hoss
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Regards,
Varun Thacker
http://varunthacker.wordpress.com

Congratulations.. Much nice, cleaner look and feel..
Thanks

Paul

Paul Doscher
Chief Executive Officer
Lucid Imagination, Inc
650 353 4057 x 114
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.lucidimagination.com

From:  Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To:  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:  Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:46:08 -0500
To:  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:  Re: [DISCUSS] New Website

We are now live!

http://lucene.apache.org/

On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> I increased the font size and made it darker.  I also updated the tutorial.
> Time for me to do other things until this weekend when I'm going to cut over,
> so if you have stuff you don't like before we cut over, see instructions
> below.  This weekend, I will bring in the old versioned docs as well as port
> over the .htaccess stuff and add in redirects for the lucene/java stuff to be
> lucene/core.
>
> If someone could update the news to be current, that would be much
> appreciated.
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
>
>> Ahem! Are we talking "over 40 fonts" here? It's a sad fact that I've
>> been noticing
>> over the last few years that the screen is getting harder to read... Living
>> long
>> enough to have that problem beats the alternative though...
>>
>> Erick
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Doron Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>> the text I see (tried 3 browsers) is a bit Gray (or faded), and I rather
>>> read a page with more contrast between the text and the background, more
>>> clear to my eyes this way, but this is just my personal preference, it seems
>>> others do not feel that way, so I'm okay with this.  Hopefully this is more
>>> clear now?
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. The body text is tiny and low contrast. Poor accessibility for
>>> anyone with low vision, including normal aging.
>>>
>>> Compare to the current site, which isn't large body text by any measure, but
>>> is bigger and full-contrast.
>>>
>>> Personally, I'd go with a serif font, but that is mostly preference.
>>> Letterforms are more differentiated with serifs, so it is just less work to
>>> read.
>>>
>>> wunder
>>> --
>>> Walter Underwood
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com <http://www.lucidimagination.com/>
>
>
>

--------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

thanks for all the work grant!

simon

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Paul Doscher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Congratulations.. Much nice, cleaner look and feel..
> Thanks
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Doscher
> Chief Executive Officer
> Lucid Imagination, Inc
> 650 353 4057 x 114
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.lucidimagination.com
>
> From: Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:46:08 -0500
>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] New Website
>
> We are now live!
>
> http://lucene.apache.org/
>
>
>
> On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> I increased the font size and made it darker.  I also updated the tutorial.
>  Time for me to do other things until this weekend when I'm going to cut
> over, so if you have stuff you don't like before we cut over, see
> instructions below.  This weekend, I will bring in the old versioned docs as
> well as port over the .htaccess stuff and add in redirects for the
> lucene/java stuff to be lucene/core.
>
> If someone could update the news to be current, that would be much
> appreciated.
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> Ahem! Are we talking "over 40 fonts" here? It's a sad fact that I've
> been noticing
> over the last few years that the screen is getting harder to read... Living
> long
> enough to have that problem beats the alternative though...
>
> Erick
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Doron Cohen wrote:
>
>
> the text I see (tried 3 browsers) is a bit Gray (or faded), and I rather
>
> read a page with more contrast between the text and the background, more
>
> clear to my eyes this way, but this is just my personal preference, it seems
>
> others do not feel that way, so I'm okay with this.  Hopefully this is more
>
> clear now?
>
>
>
> I agree. The body text is tiny and low contrast. Poor accessibility for
>
> anyone with low vision, including normal aging.
>
>
> Compare to the current site, which isn't large body text by any measure, but
>
> is bigger and full-contrast.
>
>
> Personally, I'd go with a serif font, but that is mostly preference.
>
> Letterforms are more differentiated with serifs, so it is just less work to
>
> read.
>
>
> wunder
>
> --
>
> Walter Underwood
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Simon Willnauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> thanks for all the work grant!

+1, thanks Grant!

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

+1 to cut over now and iterate after that... great work Grant!

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As many of you know, I've been doing a slow burn on switching us over to the
> new ASF CMS.  I'm finally at a point where I think we are ready, for the
> most part, so I'd like to propose we make the leap and switch.  I finally
> had time to figure out a workaround for INFRA-3850 and have released the
> logjam caused by that blocker in terms of the L&F of the site.
>
> You can see the new site at http://lucene.staging.apache.org/.  I've ported
> almost all of the existing sites and done a lot to make it look better in
> terms of getting the CSS right, etc.
>
> The new site is almost dead simple to edit:
>
> 1. svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/cms/trunk cms/trunk
> 2. svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/cms/build if you wish
> to build and test locally
> a. http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html#local-build for details on building
> locally.  If you are on a mac, you may need some perl dependencies
> installed.
> b. cd asf-cms
> c. ./build_site.pl --target-base=<path to output on local HTTPd server, I
> use ~/Sites> --source=../trunk/
> 3.  Edit the files in cms/trunk/content and cms/trunk/templates as you see
> fit.  When you are satisfied, svn commit.
> 4. Browse to the staging site to see them live.
> 5. TBD: publish to the main site.  I'll figure that out when switching and
> post.
>
> Markdown Reference: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax
> CMS Reference:
>  http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html and http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html
>
> (This info is available on the site
> at: http://lucene.staging.apache.org/site-instructions.html)
>
> The whole process is 1000x easier than Forrest.  You can even edit via the
> web using a WYSWIG editor if you so desire.
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************
> Now, here's the kicker, I'd like to switch to the new sites over this
> weekend or early next week at the latest and then iterate from there.  I
> don't have a solution for the Core versioned docs yet, but those can be
> figured out later.  Presumably we can convert them to markdown at some point
> before the next release and just maintain pointers to the old versions.
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************
>
> So, I'd suggest everyone give it a pass through, fix items as they see them
> and/or otherwise pitch in and help, because I'm tired of our current site
> and how poor it makes us look.
>
> -Grant
>
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The new site looks awesome!  Thanks so much for your efforts, Grant.

I see you didn't get a chance to incorporate the 3 Packt books to the Solr
site.  These need to be featured on Solr's front page for the ASF to collect
a cut of the book sales.  I'm willing to help with this aspect of the
website.  What do you think about adding an entry to the slideshow, at the
end for all 3 books?  And how about a menu choice under "Resource" for all 3
books called "Books" that would go to a page similar to the news page with 3
entries chronologically?  By the way, what contstitutes a "resource" seems a
little dubious / arbitrary, but I do think books definitely belong here.

~ David

-----
 Author: http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book
--
View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-New-Website-tp3704403p3711015.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------