xmlgraphics-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>
Subject Re: documentation!???
Date Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:11:59 GMT
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Pascal Sancho <psancho.asf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 2013/2/6 Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>:
> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Pascal Sancho <psancho.asf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Since XCG website repository includes now all XCG sub-projects, there
> >> should be a Jira entry for that.
> >>
> >
> > By "include all" do you mean "includes all documentation for XCG
> > sub-projects"?
>
> Yes, this is a fact. The whole XCG CMS, with sub-projects parts, is
> now in its own SVN project, outside XCG projects sources.
>

Can these be migrated back into their own original repositories? I don't
recall a discussion of the present organization when we started the move to
CMS.


>
> > I'm personally not comfortable with this arrangement, because it
> > complicates releases and doesn't properly separate distinct project
> assets.
>
> I'm not sure; the whole release process can be now divided into 2
> distinct stages:
>  1/ make the release (decide, build, push, test)
>  2/ update website/doc and announce when release is ready
>
> But I agree that doc should come with the product then added to website.
> World is not perfect.
>

Let's fix it then.


>
> >> In the same way, the doc management page should be moved to XCG general
> >> website; WDYT?
> >>
> >> 2013/2/5 Clay Leeds <the.webmaestro@gmail.com>
> >>
> >>> I'll investigate the ANT stuff.
> >>>
> >>> As for including the docs in the dist, I don't believe there's an
> option
> >>> at present. I'll investigate that as well.
> >>>
> >>> Clay
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  ok; how about the question about future releases? until now, batik,
> >>> xgc-commons, and fop could be released with source artifacts that
> contained
> >>> document sources; but now, it doesn't seem like that is possible, or at
> >>> least the "dist-src" build targets do not go out to collect the new
> >>> documentation sources and copy them into the generated source artifact;
> >>>
> >>> while you are at it, the old "publish.xml" ant files seem to be
> obsolete
> >>> as well; are there any other ant updates needed to rid us of obsolete
> doc
> >>> work flow?
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Clay Leeds <the.webmaestro@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Glenn,
> >>>>
> >>>> The documentation exists solely in the ASF CMS, and so
> >>>> fop/src/documentation is obsolete. We purposely did not delete the
> >>>> src/documentation path until we were completely sure we weren't going
> back.
> >>>> I suppose we're thereā€¦
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm happy to nuke ye olde documentation Forrest-based 'xdoc'
> directories.
> >>>>
> >>>> After I do that, I'll update the Document Management page with updated
> >>>> instructions:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/dev/doc.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> where do we edit documentation now? is fop/src/documentation now
> >>>> obsolete? if so, then why is it still in the tree? how will we do
> releases
> >>>> and still include documentation if it lives in another tree?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> pascal
>
>
>
> --
> pascal
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message