On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 06:30:03 -0800, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you need a vote to decide the location, giving various options. > E.g. under derby/code, derby/docs, derby/site etc.
Yes, well since there is disagreement, I suppose we should have a vote on it. I'll start one in a separate thread. here's how I feel about the three options: - derby/code: I think it's a good idea to keep the doc source with the code it documents in derby/code (but maybe not if it's really huge, I haven't looked at the total size of the source) - derby/docs: Having a new module is a good idea. It keeps the separation of responsibilities nice and clear. But I think the number of people who check out the docs will naturally be dramatically less than if it was included in code, meaning there are less eyes on the docs and fewer people who might make fixes to the documentation. - derby/site: Jean had a reason for not keeping them in derby/site. If I remember correctly it has to do with forrest, in that the documentation on the website should be brought in as a build product from elsewhere in order to simplify the website build. she can elaborate. > I'm also not sure why these would be added under 10.0, 10.0 is complete > and already has its documentation. True, but wouldn't it be nice to have real HTML and PDF documentation for 10.0 instead of a copy of the website? I believe the current DITA source is still applicable to 10.0, since changes to document new features (like INTERSECT) have not been made. andrew
