On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 07:50:36AM -0500, Diana Shannon wrote: > [ +1 ] creation of cocoon-docs module > [ ] docs should stay in src/documentation of the code tree module(s) > > I feel strongly about this, give the past year of my watching cvs > commits. The fact remains that many committers don't update both doc > branches when committing docs. If someone needs **facts** check out the > cvs thread when we were all updating the cvs committer list as > active/inactive/emeritus/etc. It's quite revealing to see who updated > release branch and who did not. It's also a fact that a vast majority of > our docs are identical in cocoon 2.0 and 2.1 branches. The idea of a > single docs module is supposed to make it easier and more obvious for > committers when committing doc patches.
I think the disconnect is around the purpose of the 2.0 branch. I think of 2.0.x as a _maintenance_ branch. Just as only bugfixes get into the code, so only 'bugfixes' need get into the docs. 2.0 is finished; new features (and new documentation) should go in 2.1. If someone wants to backport new features and new docs to 2.0, good for them. If they don't, that's fine too. > So, if this fails, we need some kind of discussion how to encourage > people to be more thoughtful when committing. I'm not going to spend the > next year of my commiter life syncing docs in code repos. Now you see what kind of twisty thinking justifies not synching with 2.0 8-) > I also want to respond to some of Jeff's concerns below. Having cocoon-docs rely on cocoon-2.1 seems quite reasonable. --Jeff ... > Diana >
