On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Iain 'Spoon' Truskett wrote: > > Is something missing from the CVS version? There's no Makefile.PL, > > README, or any of that stuff. Kind of makes it hard to test ;) > > Depends if you're testing from CVS or from the release file =) > > I actually generate all the files other than the ones in CVS. Over the > years I've become fed up with writing most of them, and they all > contained details that were somewhat redundant. So, these days, I type > 'docmaker' and everything's produced.
Yeah, that's great if you're _you_. I don't have this docmaker installed locally ;) > If you like, though, I can include them in the CVS and just re-commit > them on release if they're modified? I'm just generally not a fan > of having generated files in vcs. I could, alternatively, slap > docmaker and cvsparse up somewhere. I think it'd be easiest to put the generated files in CVS. It's possible that other people might need/want to release the module in the future, and certainly others with CVS access (especially anon) may want to test things. > Flow. On Thursday (or thereabouts) I'll be redoing the > documentation (incorporating any patches anyone decides to send > me). It just won't be following the code and will just be getting > in the way of it. There will also be more examples and with > the length of these things they'll just be obscuring the real > code with no actual benefit. > > With 'docmaker' and some other bits, I've been streamlining my > release protocol. With the things they do, it's harder for me to > overlook changes. Given that I tend to update the POD and Changes > simultaneously... > > Yes, it'd be nice to have them in one file, but no matter how I > fold, it just doesn't work for me. Sorry. Why not just put the POD at the end of the file? It's out of the way of the code but close enough that it's easy to update. -dave /*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/
