forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Diana Shannon <>
Subject Separate CVS module for docs?
Date Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:26:29 GMT
As you know, Cocoon's CVS is quite large and growing. Issues with 
samples and docs can hold up vital and timely releases. In light of 
that, and Cocoon's upcoming Forrest transition, what is your opinion on 
the pros and cons of a separate cvs module for docs, especially for 
large CVSs?

- Clean transition to Forrest capabilities (maintain two versions until 
the new module is ready to roll)
- One set of xdocs -> all versions of docs, with some work
    (i.e. no need to update multiple branches... although we could do 
this now I suppose )
- Doc-oriented committers can keep a "tighter ship"
- Doc production more reliable, less impacted by alpha-like code changes
- Shorter build times
- Easier to add/test/implement scratchpad as well as functionality for 
- Anticipates a dynamic web site for doc management.
   We'll be better prepared when that option becomes available.

- Non-doc-oriented committers may be even more detached from docs??
- Users keeping up with CVS may need to maintain yet another local 
- Dynamic doc generation, linking code to docs (like jars.xml generation)
   during builds has to be done remotely. Is this feasible? I hope so, 
   I'd like more docs to have similar content dependencies to source code.
- May lose cvs history of xdocs.

- Where would dynamic samples belong? Code cvs or Doc cvs? Another 

Your thoughts?


View raw message