On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Rafael Rezende <[email protected]> wrote: > I was thinking about introducing the documentation in > markdown format directly from the Jenkins plugin itself. That is, an extra > doc folder in the plugin's source that will be part of the snapshot (tag, > revision, release.. you name it). This way, there is a direct correlation > between the source and the doc, devs feel motivated (or compelled) to update > docs accordingly
That is what I did in `workflow-plugin`, for reasons similar to those you outline. There was some discussion about this topic in the context of the Jenkins 2.0 website. I was not really involved but IIRC there was general agreement that it would be nice to have plugin documentation maintained (a) in markup in SCM, rather than in a wiki, (b) in per-plugin repositories rather than globally (meaning that the site would somehow suck in conventionally-named files from other repositories). Someone involved in this work should fill in details. > you established that plugins > without documentation in your confluence are to be considered deprecated. I think the rule was that they had to *have* a wiki page, and use that as the `<url>` in `pom.xml`. But the wiki could merely be a stub linking to the real docs. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr15FPLB_UWbQgPc9mO2DB99Oafqh9t50VFKTETK%3D7TNCQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
