Hyrum K. Wright wrote: > In general, I agree with this idea. It's kinda painful to have to go > search notes/, and then the website when looking for various docs. > But.... > > Staring at plain text files can be painful (especially something as long > as HACKING). Links within and between documents is useful, especially in > technical documentation. Being able to link to a specific part of a > document, such as the patch or log message section is invaluable. And it > helps to be able to use non-ascii illustrations, variable-wdith fonts, > font-size differences, etc. > > For all of these reasons, I'd like to advocate that we keep documentation > in html, perhaps in a dedicated dev/ part of the website. And yes, this > may mean that we move notes/ to site/dev/ .
I think you've brought a whole bunch of assumptions into this that needn't be brought. * Who has said that trunk/notes must be plaintext files only? Not I. Rich text is valuable, and we'd be well-served to make even more use of it here in 2010. * Who says you have to search through trunk/notes and the website to find something? I propose that docs like the merge-tracking design stuffs and hacking and other developer-focused materials continue to live under /trunk, be maintained alongside the code those things are aimed at, etc. But of course, on our public website's "Developer Resources" page (or whatever), we link directly to trunk/notes/dev/hacking/index.html via its Subversion resource URL and let mod_dav_svn serve it up. In other words, documents of common import to developers can still be *linked to* from our website, but they needn't rest outside our source tree. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
