ok, I guess I went overboard with my theory of strictly maintaining the current docs in SVN (That's no reason to pull out that old builder extension thing anyway :( ) but I guess I'm more biased to doing things the right way rather than the easy way (which is unfortunately not the same and sometimes the 'right' way is very subjective) I'm (reluctantly) ok with having two versions of documents in the xdocs however what I'm trying to convince the people is that it's not the elegant solution. With all this technology around us (SVN,maven, ant) we should be able to find a better solution than this :) However I'm not maintaining the docs so it's not my call. May it be an ugly solution, but if it suits the one who'll be really doing the work, then let it be. Having said that we are yet to hear the opinion of Chathra on this and I would say that is the conclusion of this thread
Ajith On 3/21/06, Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope we can apply our "builder extensions" theory here, but > unfortunately for the same person :-D > > (for those who doesn't know what this builder extensions theory is, > please search for the mails of Axis2 during its start up days) > > -- Chinthaka > > Ajith Ranabahu wrote: > > Hi all, > > Ok I'm also +1 to the compromise but I have a small issue to be clarified. > > Once a release is out we do a SVN tag (and I've been told that tags > > automatically become branches, of which I'm not really sure about - If > > not lets say we always start a branch after a tag which seems to be > > the right thing to do if there are continuous changes). The idea of > > the tag is a convenient way of retrieving the relevant version later. > > However if we do the updates on the main tree and not commit the same > > changes to the branches , the source retrieved from that branch will > > be inconsistent! > > I remember a cool feature is VSS (ok - I used to work with MSFT > > software sometime earlier :)) where a source file could be shared in > > two locations (more like a symlink thing). If we do have something > > like that in SVN that'd solve our problem > > > > Ajith > > > > On 3/21/06, robert lazarski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> "Damn, I was going to enjoy giving boxing gloves to see open source > >> developers fight about documentation!!!!!!!!!!!" > >> > >> Or a soccer ball, since the world cup is approaching. ;-) +1 to a good > >> compromise. > >> > >> Robert > >> http://www.braziloutsource.com/ > >> > >> > >> On 3/21/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Cool :) +1. > >>> > >>> Damn, I was going to enjoy giving boxing gloves to see open source > >>> developers fight about documentation!!!!!!!!!!! > >>> > >>> Sanjiva. > >>> > >>> On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 16:25 +0600, Eran Chinthaka wrote: > >>> > >>>> Ok, time to compromise ;-) > >>>> > >>>> Lets maintain two versions of the documents inside the xdocs. One with > >>>> the *released* version of docs and the other with *latest *version of > >>>> the docs. > >>>> > >>>> And lets have all the versions of the documents in the site. *BUT, *we > >>>> will update only the documents of the last release. So the older > >>>> documents will be sort of archived, but the links will never change. > >>>> > >>>> Can we all agree to this ? > >>>> > >>>> This is my +1. > >>>> > >>>> -- Chinthaka > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Ajith Ranabahu > > > > > > -- Ajith Ranabahu
