On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 08:25:53PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > As an advisory, I'd be *really* against separating them out like 1.3. I've > been really aggravated by that separation. Yes, the 2.x docs and source > now have two separate build systems, but I honestly don't think it is a big > deal for developers - it enforces that the docs and code represent the > 'same' version.
Agreed. But if bandwidth is a major issue, this is one way to use a bit less. > > As a question, how would we deal with the branches to represent > stable/unstable if we have separate source repositories for the doc and > source? By keeping them in the same repository, it's trivial. > Yes, it is doable with a split, but certainly simpler to keep the docs where they are. > I'd also say that separating out the docs into language packs doesn't seem > right either as there should only be one release tarball. Having to sign > and produce 20 or 30 'releases' (even if some are merely snapshots of the > docs) would be confusing to both users and the poor RMs. -- justin > Yeah, that would be a pain. A less radical approach could be to have the base version with english only and then an optional language pack containing all others. Personally I like what we have now. Being able to read the docs without a running Apache would be a plus, but that's about the only thing I'd want to change. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
