Reinhard Poetz wrote: > Upayavira wrote: > >David Crossley wrote: [snip] > >>The trouble that i have with the new documentation proposal is that > >>docs sources are moving to another part of the repository, so how > >>will 'build docs' be able to access them? I suppose that assumed default > >>relative pathnames with lots of dot-dots. > > > >A different part of the repository? Well, they'll according to the > >proposal, they'll soon be moving back into where they have always been > >in trunk (src/documentation). So I don't see what the problem is there. > > I think so too. After understanding now how it works, there shouldn't be > any problems as we can use the same behaviour in the future.
Great ... it turned into a non-issue. > >Maybe you're referring to block documentation (for which there actually > >isn't any at the moment). This I guess would need to be dot-dots back to > >a checkout of the blocks repository or repositories - or more likely > >each block would have its own forrestbot setup (assuming that isn't too > >complex). Not complex. > If a block has its own docs repository (I will setup one for the Portal > block) it should also be built by forrestbot. Let me know when you are ready and i will add it to brutus. > David, do you have any further questions about "auto-docs"? Not at this stage. --David
