Maven 2.x and 3.x Site Plugin

add rsync deploy to site

Details

  • Type: New Feature New Feature
  • Status: Open Open
  • Priority: Major Major
  • Resolution: Unresolved
  • Affects Version/s: None
  • Fix Version/s: None
  • Component/s: site:deploy
  • Labels:
    None
  • Number of attachments :
    0

Issue Links

is related to

Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. MSITE-362 Site upload is not compatible with sourceforge.net changes

  • Major - Major loss of function.
  • Closed - The issue is considered finished, the resolution is correct. Issues which are not closed can be reopened.

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Hide
Permalink
John Casey added a comment -

won't that require something akin to an rsync wagon?

Show
John Casey added a comment - won't that require something akin to an rsync wagon?
Hide
Permalink
Brett Porter added a comment -

I don't think so, actually. I think we should make the directory copy method of scpexe call rsync (if configured to do so instead of zip/copy/unzip). We probably need to get a java-ish implementation for the pure scp version.

The rsync code should probably be separate so the file -> file can use it for example.

Just some thoughts.

Show
Brett Porter added a comment - I don't think so, actually. I think we should make the directory copy method of scpexe call rsync (if configured to do so instead of zip/copy/unzip). We probably need to get a java-ish implementation for the pure scp version. The rsync code should probably be separate so the file -> file can use it for example. Just some thoughts.
Hide
Permalink
Kay Grosskop added a comment -

why would this feature be desirable?

I am curious about Brett's initial motivation to report the issue and wether it is still needed.

We had a pretty heavy site and a slow connection to our webserver. So I was looking for a way to copy over only artifacts that have changed since the last deploy.
Moreover, resources that were deleted from the new build where still accessible on the webserver because the deployment dit not clean up old installations of the site.

Show
Kay Grosskop added a comment - why would this feature be desirable? I am curious about Brett's initial motivation to report the issue and wether it is still needed. We had a pretty heavy site and a slow connection to our webserver. So I was looking for a way to copy over only artifacts that have changed since the last deploy. Moreover, resources that were deleted from the new build where still accessible on the webserver because the deployment dit not clean up old installations of the site.
Hide
Permalink
Andreas Schildbach added a comment -

You have answered your question yourself.

Additionally, it would be nice to have another upload protocol that is easy for firewalls. FTP is a pain.

Show
Andreas Schildbach added a comment - You have answered your question yourself. Additionally, it would be nice to have another upload protocol that is easy for firewalls. FTP is a pain.
Hide
Permalink
Andreas Sewe added a comment -

FWIW, the IETF has standardized a URI scheme for rsync in RFC 5781 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5781.txt), so you don't have to make up your own for this.

Show
Andreas Sewe added a comment - FWIW, the IETF has standardized a URI scheme for rsync in RFC 5781 ( http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5781.txt ), so you don't have to make up your own for this.

People

  • Assignee:
    Unassigned
    Reporter:
    Brett Porter
Vote (7)
Watch (9)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated: