Hi! Does it make sense to include all developer documentation into the tarball? As an alternative, only user documentation, plus a notice where to find the developer docs, could be included, while the rest can only be found in the repository at hg.dillo.org. I assume that someone who is interested in the internals of dillo will anyway refer to the lastest version from the Hg repository. Keeping it out of the tarball would have advantages: - It makes the tarball smaller. - We developers would not have to think that much about file sizes of the documentation: these files do not go into the tarball; and for those using the lastest version from the Hg repository, it should be reasonable to spend some more disc space. What do you think? Sebastian
Sebastian wrote:
Keeping it out of the tarball would have advantages:
- It makes the tarball smaller.
- We developers would not have to think that much about file sizes of the documentation: these files do not go into the tarball; and for those using the lastest version from the Hg repository, it should be reasonable to spend some more disc space.
What do you think?
*agrees*
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 02:25:49PM +0200, Sebastian Geerken wrote:
Hi!
Does it make sense to include all developer documentation into the tarball? As an alternative, only user documentation, plus a notice where to find the developer docs, could be included, while the rest can only be found in the repository at hg.dillo.org. I assume that someone who is interested in the internals of dillo will anyway refer to the lastest version from the Hg repository.
Keeping it out of the tarball would have advantages:
- It makes the tarball smaller.
- We developers would not have to think that much about file sizes of the documentation: these files do not go into the tarball; and for those using the lastest version from the Hg repository, it should be reasonable to spend some more disc space.
What do you think?
One disadvantage is no longer having both synced in the same tarball. Now, if docs live in the same hg repo as sources, but just don't make it into the tarball, I see no problems. They are kept in sync for devs, and the tarball goes smaller, in which case I do agree. -- Cheers Jorge.-
On So, Mai 24, 2015, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 02:25:49PM +0200, Sebastian Geerken wrote:
Hi!
Does it make sense to include all developer documentation into the tarball? As an alternative, only user documentation, plus a notice where to find the developer docs, could be included, while the rest can only be found in the repository at hg.dillo.org. I assume that someone who is interested in the internals of dillo will anyway refer to the lastest version from the Hg repository.
Keeping it out of the tarball would have advantages:
- It makes the tarball smaller.
- We developers would not have to think that much about file sizes of the documentation: these files do not go into the tarball; and for those using the lastest version from the Hg repository, it should be reasonable to spend some more disc space.
What do you think?
One disadvantage is no longer having both synced in the same tarball.
Now, if docs live in the same hg repo as sources, but just don't make it into the tarball, I see no problems. They are kept in sync for devs, and the tarball goes smaller, in which case I do agree.
I want to keep them in the same repository, especially since Doxygen works also on the sources. I thought of something simple like removing most files from EXTRA_DIST in doc/Makefile.am. (BTW, EXTRA_DIST has been poorly maintained in the past, so the tarball did have an incomplete documentation sometimes.) Sebastian
Hi! The documentation is now split: - "doc" contains user documentation, and is included in the tarball. - "devdoc" contains developer documentation, and is only contained in the Hg repository, not in the tarball. Running "doxygen" will still create documentation in the "html" directory. Sebastian
participants (3)
-
eocene＠gmx.com -
jcid＠dillo.org -
sgeerken＠dillo.org