On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Jessica Tomechak <[email protected]> wrote: > See reply below. > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:20 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Jessica Tomechak >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > See inline below for my reply to David's question about purging the docs >> > directory in the repo. >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: David Nalley [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:39 PM >> > To: Chip Childers >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: Easy task for folks looking to get involved >> > >> > >> > >> > <snip> >> > >> >> >Here are the folders that I have outstanding questions / issues with: >> > >> > <snip> >> > >> > >> docs 100 - SKIPPED - I'm not sure how the documentation folder will >> > >> >>> get the copyright and license terms changes. Can one of the technical >> > >> >>> writers from the Citrix team take a look and help here? >> > >> > >> >>Jessica - how soon can we purge this directory from the ASF repo? >> > >> >>Nothing here that should require adding license headers. >> > >> > >> > So to answer your question with a question: do we want to purge the docs >> > directory, or do we want to replace it with an open-source version of >> > the >> > legacy docs? >> > >> > If the Apache repo doesn't need to preserve history from before the >> > donation, then the directory can be removed whenever you feel like it. >> > We >> > are replacing it with a separate XML-based doc repo for v3.0 forward >> > (coming soon!) Obviously, keeping Citrix-copyrighted Word for Windows >> > files >> > would be highly undesirable in an Apache Foundation code repo. >> > >> > However, maybe we need to make CC-BY-SA versions of the docs to support >> > users of 2.2.x versions. I still update the 2.2.x docs, especially if a >> > major inaccuracy is found. I publish the updates to >> > http://docs.cloudstack.org. >> > >> > As for the 2.0 and 2.1 documents in the docs directory, I don't remember >> > ever touching them. They are still copyrighted to Cloud.com. >> > >> > >> > Jessica T. >> > >> > CloudStack Tech Pubs >> >> 2.2.x, 2.1.x and anything prior to the 3.0.x of CloudStack was not >> part of the software grant to the ASF - so docs related to those >> versions don't seem relevant since there will never be an Apache >> CloudStack 2.x.x. >> >> Just so we are clear, we are talking about 'rm -rf docs' in the source >> repo? >> >> --David > > > David, before you rm with the -full_nuke options, we will need to save > copies of the 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 docs in some location for use by Citrix. > Seems like the Citrix code mirror would be the place for that, wouldn't it? > > > Jessica T. > CloudStack Tech Pubs >
I went ahead and rm --nuke_from_orbit all of the binary files under ./docs Citrix has a copy of this, and it's not really ACS's problem, and worst case, git is a revision control system so it's easy to go back in time. That should save us about 50M on source size. --David
