harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: FW: [doc][drlvm][classlib] trunk has old doc files
Date Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:49:18 GMT
I like to keep 'em guessing :)

A website is a website.  It can have the docs - should have the docs. 
And maybe in the end there's nothing to really distinguish...  but I 
always worry about the website tail wagging the documentation dog...

geir


Morozova, Nadezhda wrote:
>> I'd would prefer if we distinguish between "website" and
> "documentation"
>> as I think they are actually different.
> I've had an impression that we've actually been pulling these together,
> so your idea is somewhat revolutionary to me :)
> 
> Cheers, 
> Nadya
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com]
>> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 8:17 PM
>> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: FW: [doc][drlvm][classlib] trunk has old doc files
>>
>>
>>
>> Morozova, Nadezhda wrote:
>>> As a result, some docs are distributed with code and copied to site,
>>> some are stored at the site only, and some are duplicated and require
>>> syncing.
>>>
>>> I can do the cleanup to find files that exist in two variants and try
>>> the merge, but I need to know where we're merging them to. Which
> option
>>> do we prefer?
>>> 1. Continue storing docs in the trunk of code and set up externals
>>> copying for all classlib docs and for drlvm docs?
>>> 2. Remove all docs out of trunk and store on the site only?
>>>
>>> I'd vote for 2 - because this seems simpler and unambiguous and fewer
>>> copies of files actually exist. However, I'd go with what gurus say.
>> I actually don't care, as long as there is only one copy which people
>> work on (which is the case now).
>>
>> I'd would prefer if we distinguish between "website" and
> "documentation"
>> as I think they are actually different.
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Nadya
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Morozova, Nadezhda [mailto:nadezhda.morozova@intel.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:26 PM
>>> To: dev@harmony.apache.org; geir@pobox.com
>>> Subject: RE: [doc][drlvm] trunk has old doc files
>>>
>>>> If there are duplicates, yes.  I thought we were using the externals
> to
>>>> get to stuff to *avoid* duplication.
>>> Yes, though I am not 100% sure we never broke that rule. Will
>>> investigate.
>>> Anyway, what I wanted to say is - if you suggest that we remove the
> docs
>>> from the trunk because they're on the site, we can probably do the
> same
>>> for classlib. If you notice, my second alternative was to adopt the
>>> classlib practice of using externals. Just which one is preferred?
>>>
>>>> I'd like to hear what others think too...
>>> Ok, I'm taking a break with this ;)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Nadya
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:22 PM
>>>> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [doc][drlvm] trunk has old doc files
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Morozova, Nadezhda wrote:
>>>>>>> - removing the docs from the directory: can have links to the
>>> website
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> README instead
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>> Can we adopt the same for classlib and stop using svn externals?
>>>> If there are duplicates, yes.  I thought we were using the externals
> to
>>>> get to stuff to *avoid* duplication.
>>>>
>>>> Just so I'm not confusing things, can you give me an example ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to hear what others think too...
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Nadya
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:42 PM
>>>>>> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [doc][drlvm] trunk has old doc files
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Morozova, Nadezhda wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The directory drlvm/trunk/vm/doc has the old documents Getting
>>>>> Started
>>>>>>> and Developer's guide. These have not been updated for a while
> and
>>>>> use
>>>>>>> the old style sheet. Fresher versions are available on the
> website.
>>>>>>> I suggest that we fix the inconsistency by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - removing the docs from the directory: can have links to the
>>> website
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> README instead
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - copying the latest doc versions from site to svn vm/doc
> directory
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> using svn externals to hook up to site (as is done for some
>>> classlib
>>>>>>> docs)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you say?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers, Nadya
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

Mime
View raw message