On 24/3/03 9:13 am, "Jeff Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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)
>
> 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.
Folks, do you know that there's the possibility to alias certain subparts of
a particular CVS repository from another repository?
Like "cocoon-2.1/src/docs" can be stored in the "cocoon-docs" repository.
Apache does it already with its httpd-docs repository, aliased to
httpd-2.0/docs (or something like it)...
Pier
