hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tsz Wo \(Nicholas\), Sze" <s29752-hadoop...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: commit Forrest output?
Date Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:53:23 GMT
+1 for (1).

If we do (1) or (2), what should we do for making sure that the patch is good?

Nicholas




----- Original Message ----
> From: Doug Cutting <cutting@apache.org>
> To: core-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2008 12:54:35 PM
> Subject: commit Forrest output?
> 
> We currently re-generate PDF and HTML documentation whenever we commit a 
> documentation patch, which creates huge commit messages that few read. This was 
> originally done so that folks who check out the sources from subversion did not 
> need to install forrest in order to read the documentation.
> 
> Perhaps we should change this.  Some options:
> 
> 1. Do not commit Forrest output at all.  Documentation would be generated as a 
> part of release builds, or when a developer wanted to browse it, just as javadoc 
> is.  Documentation on the website would be extracted from the release tarball, 
> just as javadoc is.
> 
> 2. Do not commit Forrest output except when preparing for a release.
> 
> 3. Keep committing Forrest output each time a documentation change is made.
> 
> (I'm speaking here about the versioned documentation, that's included in 
> releases, not the project website, which we commit for a different reason--so 
> that ops can quickly rebuild it--and that changes more slowly.)
> 
> My preference would be for (1).  Thoughts?
> 
> Doug


Mime
View raw message