+1 to #2. Shouldnt need to download the documentation unless we want to.
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:15:34 -0500, Edward Rayl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew McIntyre wrote: > > > Recently, a vote was approved that the source for the Derby > > documentation should be XML DITA format. Details can be found in > > these threads: > > > > http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200502.mbox/ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200503.mbox/ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > These source files should now be stored in the Subversion repository. > > Please vote on one of the following locations to store the source: > > > > 1 - in derby/code, with each branch getting its own copy of the > > source as applicable, in docs/src > > > > 2 - in derby/docs, a new module with a similar trunk/branches/tags > > layout underneath to easily match the version of the documentation to > > the corresponding code. > > > > 3 - a hybrid approach, with the source checked in to derby/code, and > > the remaining files necessary to build the docs in derby/docs as > > suggested here: > > > > http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200503.mbox/ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > After reviewing the source, which comprises almost 1100 files (nearly > > as many as the engine!), and will have its own building requirements, > > I am now thinking that everyone will be happier if the docs are > > managed separately from either the code or the website. > > > > My +1 vote goes to option 2. > > > > andrew > > > > > > > As an end user, option 2 seems to make more sense. I would vote for > that as well. > >
