Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
After some pondering, I understand that one thing is the site, and one thing is the documentation.Noel J. Bergman wrote:So it would seem to me that docs and code should reside in the same repo.Nicola, I'd like to avoid problems like when we branched v2, and I had to manually update both sides because I accidentally updated the web site in the v2 branch instead of HEAD. I prefer a structural solution to the problem.Ahh.I agree that generated javadocs are part of the result, but just because the
java code is in a module doesn't mean that we can't emit the HTML into
another module.
Err, it's about the doc writers that want to add javadocs, not the generation.
Anyway, I'm not saying that having different repos is /wrong/, those were just things to ponder upon.
If I branch the code, I would want to branch the docs about that code, not about the James project. By having a site module for common James site pages, I won't have this problem. Docs should be with the code, but the main site is not.
Yep, this makes more sense now :-)
(Thanks also to Leo Simmons for starting it on Avalon and showing me the benefit)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
