Jeff Turner wrote, On 24/03/2003 10.13:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 07:31:39AM +0100, Steven Noels wrote:
In order to get one little step closer to the 'new' document infrastructure, many of us seek clarity whether we should move docs to a separate CVS module or not. The benefits and downfalls are largely known, so let's vote on this and get this issue cleared.
My own personal bias: don't forget the different Cocoon _versions_ are now stored in separate modules, too.
Please cast your vote:
[ ] creation of cocoon-docs module [+1] docs should stay in src/documentation of the code tree module(s)
For me
[+1] docs should stay in src/documentation of the code tree module(s)
Because:
- With a separate cocoon-docs module, I don't see how the various code-related files (status.xml, jars.xml) are obtained.
- Making a separate doc module kills outright any future efforts to generate docs directly from code (e.g. a component manual).
- I think that by default, doc changes should only apply to one codebase (2.0 or 2.1). There are many differences that are *meant* to be there, that could get lost if 2.0 and 2.1 docs are generated from a common source.
I agree with all the above.
I want to remember that Avalon has decided to keep an avalon-site module, but only for the *site*, not the documentation.
Is there a difference? Sure, we just forgot about it till now :->
The site keeps basic design point, the infos for the users (contributing, mailing lists, etc), and basically anything that is not related to product documentation.
I'd be +0 for that, but else the docs should be where the code is (and javadocs are even nearer).
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------