On 24 Mar 2003, David Crossley wrote:
> Diana Shannon wrote: > > > Right now, when I change some > > > code (say, rename DefaultsMetaModule to DefaultsModule), I can simply > > > grep cocoon-2.1 and find all references to the old class in code *and* > > > docs, and update them. With a separate module I'd probably forget, or > > > forget to 'cvs up' it. > > > > Well, some of us believe a single docs cvs, which can produce 2.0 or 2.1 > > docs will be even better. In your above-described scenario, you'd also > > "forget" to update cocoon-2.0 (if necessary) since it's now in a > > separate repo. That "forgetfulness" issue didn't prevent the repo > > separation of code. > > > > Think about a wiki/html editing system which writes to cvs. Wouldn't you > > want a separate docs cvs for that? As far as docs which depend on > > specific files in a code cvs (e.g. jars.xml), Forrest simply needs to > > know where such cvs repos live (locally or via view-cvs or similar). > > > >> - transition to document v-11 > > Yes, this is a big stage. It shouldn't, because there is already a stylesheet for doing this: xml-forrest/src/resources/stylesheets/docv10todocv11.xsl It shouldn't be great thing to write a little ant script. > > >> - add static documentation (built by cocoon-docs repo with Forrest) > > >> to both 2.0 and 2.1 repos > > > > > > ?! Do you mean, commit 10mb of generated HTML/PDF to cocoon-2.1? > > > I hope not :) > > > > As a matter of fact, yes, with or without pdf. Most of the cvs-based > > projects I download have static doc files in their cvs, not dynamic > > doc-generating capability with doc source files. Are you saying this > > practice is "old school"? I personally **really** like to simply double > > click a doc file to get started instead of figure out how to build the > > docs first. > > > > And/or, we could make doc set snapshots available, as we do now for > > code. > > But they would not need to build docs. They have a running > Cocoon webapp which generates its own docs. > > So i think that we do not need to checkin the produced docs > to cvs nor do we need a separate snapshot of produced docs. > > And yes, it suddenly occurs to me that the practice *is* old-school! > > I hope that i am right, because it seems an elegant solution. I have also objections, to add static generated docs into the CVS. My proposal is that the bin-dist includes all static generated docs, and the war file, the source-dist, need a installation of Forrest to generate the docs. And a 'ant war' generate only a samples webapp. Thoughts? Stephan.
