On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Pascal Sancho <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > 2013/2/6 Glenn Adams <[email protected]>: > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Pascal Sancho <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Since XCG website repository includes now all XCG sub-projects, there > >> should be a Jira entry for that. > >> > > > > By "include all" do you mean "includes all documentation for XCG > > sub-projects"? > > Yes, this is a fact. The whole XCG CMS, with sub-projects parts, is > now in its own SVN project, outside XCG projects sources. > Can these be migrated back into their own original repositories? I don't recall a discussion of the present organization when we started the move to CMS. > > > I'm personally not comfortable with this arrangement, because it > > complicates releases and doesn't properly separate distinct project > assets. > > I'm not sure; the whole release process can be now divided into 2 > distinct stages: > 1/ make the release (decide, build, push, test) > 2/ update website/doc and announce when release is ready > > But I agree that doc should come with the product then added to website. > World is not perfect. > Let's fix it then. > > >> In the same way, the doc management page should be moved to XCG general > >> website; WDYT? > >> > >> 2013/2/5 Clay Leeds <[email protected]> > >> > >>> I'll investigate the ANT stuff. > >>> > >>> As for including the docs in the dist, I don't believe there's an > option > >>> at present. I'll investigate that as well. > >>> > >>> Clay > >>> > >>> > >>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Glenn Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> ok; how about the question about future releases? until now, batik, > >>> xgc-commons, and fop could be released with source artifacts that > contained > >>> document sources; but now, it doesn't seem like that is possible, or at > >>> least the "dist-src" build targets do not go out to collect the new > >>> documentation sources and copy them into the generated source artifact; > >>> > >>> while you are at it, the old "publish.xml" ant files seem to be > obsolete > >>> as well; are there any other ant updates needed to rid us of obsolete > doc > >>> work flow? > >>> > >>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Clay Leeds <[email protected] > >wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Glenn, > >>>> > >>>> The documentation exists solely in the ASF CMS, and so > >>>> fop/src/documentation is obsolete. We purposely did not delete the > >>>> src/documentation path until we were completely sure we weren't going > back. > >>>> I suppose we're there… > >>>> > >>>> I'm happy to nuke ye olde documentation Forrest-based 'xdoc' > directories. > >>>> > >>>> After I do that, I'll update the Document Management page with updated > >>>> instructions: > >>>> > >>>> http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/dev/doc.html > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Glenn Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> where do we edit documentation now? is fop/src/documentation now > >>>> obsolete? if so, then why is it still in the tree? how will we do > releases > >>>> and still include documentation if it lives in another tree? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> pascal > > > > -- > pascal > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
