Like Michael I think it is also a minor point. The reason I chose this structure is because it is the default one for asciidoctor and is flexible for the future, so Paul also makes a good point. Any structure is fine by me, the real important work is getting the documentation right which is very exciting to me.
I will create a patch soon for a base level structure and publishing options for both HTML and PDF. It would be fantastic if we can unify _all_ of our documentation here including stuff currently in the wiki. This way any changes to code are reflected (probably in the same commit) with the relevant documentation. I think we should start to consider maybe forming a team willing to help. This is a big, but extremely important thing to have. If we do this right then I think adoption rates would increase and our community would get larger. On Jan 28, 2018 12:19 PM, "Michael Brohl" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Paul, this is only a minor point for me, it just saves one folder/structure level. If we want to stay open for other documentation frameworks in the future, it might be better to keep the proposed structure. Best regards, Michael Am 28.01.18 um 02:54 schrieb Paul Foxworthy: On 26 January 2018 at 19:53, Michael Brohl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > with a small modification: I don't think we'll need a two-folder structure >> /docs/asciidoc, only /docs should be sufficient, no? >> >> Hi Michael, > > We have streamlined the build system in other places by having folders for > the source language: groovyScripts, minilang, src/main/java . > > It means Groovy and other build tools can have default rules for what to do > with the contents of a language folder, and allows for the possibility of > other languages in future if necessary. > > The extra layer is only a minor nuisance. I think I'd prefer to keep it. > What do you see as the disadvantages? > > Cheers > > Paul Foxworthy > >
