cocoon-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [vote] micro-decision for docs: creation of cocoon-docs CVS module
Date Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:50:27 GMT
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 07:50:36AM -0500, Diana Shannon wrote:
>   [ +1 ]  creation of cocoon-docs module
>   [ ]  docs should stay in src/documentation of the code tree module(s)
> 
> I feel strongly about this, give the past year of my watching cvs 
> commits. The fact remains that many committers don't update both doc 
> branches when committing docs. If someone needs **facts** check out the 
> cvs thread when we were all updating the cvs committer list as 
> active/inactive/emeritus/etc. It's quite revealing to see who updated 
> release branch and who did not. It's also a fact that a vast majority of 
> our docs are identical in cocoon 2.0 and 2.1 branches. The idea of a 
> single docs module is supposed to make it easier and more obvious for 
> committers when committing doc patches.

I think the disconnect is around the purpose of the 2.0 branch.  I think
of 2.0.x as a _maintenance_ branch.  Just as only bugfixes get into the
code, so only 'bugfixes' need get into the docs.  2.0 is finished; new
features (and new documentation) should go in 2.1.  If someone wants to
backport new features and new docs to 2.0, good for them.  If they don't,
that's fine too.

> So, if this fails, we need some kind of discussion how to encourage 
> people to be more thoughtful when committing. I'm not going to spend the 
> next year of my commiter life syncing docs in code repos.

Now you see what kind of twisty thinking justifies not synching with 2.0
8-)

> I also want to respond to some of Jeff's concerns below.

Having cocoon-docs rely on cocoon-2.1 seems quite reasonable.

--Jeff

... 
> Diana
> 

Mime
View raw message