httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Date Wed, 09 Aug 2000 18:02:22 GMT

> > > How easy would it be to keep a doc-free version available, though? (For
> > > automated tests etc., it would be a little quicker to check out the code
> > > only.)
> > 
> > I'm sure you already thought of this, but just in case:
> > 
> > 1) Docs are required for "make install" to work.
> 
> Hrmph. Unless anyone can suggest any regression tests for the
> documentation files - actually, I can think of a few, but they'd all fail
> every .html file ATM - I don't want to install them anyway...

It doesn't matter if the docs are wrong, they are required.  They also
aren't installed if you already have an htdocs directory.  What we are
discussing here, is developers getting code without docs.  That is
unacceptable.  That gives the definite impression that docs aren't
important for developers to worry about.  Docs must always go with code.

> > 2) If you're doing "cvs update" in your automation, surely there
> >    isn't much overhead to update the docs too?
> 
> Not MUCH overhead, no; the question is, would it be easier to retain the
> existing functionality, or to add in this overhead again?

As Ken said, it is a simple one line change to add in the overhead.  This
needs to be done anyway, because that allows us to easily tar the docs
with the code, and it keeps people from having to do two checkouts
whenever they check out the apache-2.0 tree.  To keep the existing
functionality, we would also need to add another CVS module that didn't
have the docs.  That would be a mistake IMHO.

Ryan


_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message