Re: [doc] Where should the DITA source files be checked in?

[scott hutinger]

I would agree with what Andrew said on the docs/src etc.  The question 
is, should it be a separate module to checkout within the trunk?  I 
think the entire docs are fairly large.  I would suggest currently keep 
the docs source out of the forrest build till a future date; seeing how 
some problems exist for this.

My thoughts are that it might be better to have a docs module, or does 
this create some problems I can't see?

scott

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
 

Considering that we might keep a built copy in code, I would suggest the
following layout underneath derby/code/trunk and derby/code/branches/10.0:
docs/src - XML DITA source, and DTD's / XSL files if the license for
those files is compatible, along with detailed instructions on how to
build the final output from the source.
docs/html - built html user documentation (as monolithic HTML files)
docs/pdf - built PDF documentation
The vote to accept DITA as the source format for the documentation was
approved. I don't see a problem with going ahead and checking in the
source to the repository, but perhaps you should give some more time for
comment before checking them in.
   

I think you need a vote to decide the location, giving various options.
E.g. under derby/code, derby/docs, derby/site etc.
I'm also not sure why these would be added under 10.0, 10.0 is complete
and already has its documentation.
Dan.