Ok. Everyone seems in favor of keeping everything in a single repo. Let's keep it that way then.
Martin On 19/08/13 11:13, Schmurfy wrote:
The only experience I have on this is from all the projects I used/watched over the years and whenever the docs and the code and separated they quickly tend to get out of sync, one of the recent example of this is having the sources on github with the docs in the project wiki. The situation here is different but I don't think having two separate repos/branches for the docs and the code will simplify anything, I tend to think it will make things more complex for everyone involved. Having an option to not build the doc is enough for me, requiring the docs tools to build the source is indeed evil and stupid (and yet some project do this...). On 18 August 2013 17:23, John D. Mitchell <jdmitchell@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:jdmitchell@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: +1 John On Aug 18, 2013, at 7:36, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> There are two possible solutions: >> >> 1. Ignore it. People should install the doc toolchain if they want to use >> docs while offline. >> 2. Package the generated docs in the source package. >> >> I was trying to come up with a way to do 2.) cleanly, but I guess we'll just >> proceed with 1.) for now. > > Seems to me like 2.) is the accepted solution, many projects do this > IME. The difference in the build system can be between the default > make target and a dist target (which usually depends on a separate doc > target). I think putting the docs in a separate repo/branch would be a > step back. > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan >
