mkanat at kerio.com
Wed Jan 28 05:17:35 UTC 2004
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 18:22, David Miller wrote:
> In other news...
> I'd like to propose completely removing the HTML, Text, and PDF versions
> of the docs from CVS.
Most of the other projects that I know of have been doing this
> 1) If someone checks in an XML change that doesn't validate, it'll likely
> take out the HTML version of the docs on the website if they don't fix it
> within 15 minutes.
Which honestly, shouldn't be a problem if people are actually testing
and reviewing. :-)
Also, you could have a script that publishes the CVS-docs to the web
and refuses to post a new version if the XML validation fails.
> 2) People checking out of cvs who don't have docbook set up won't have the
> html and text versions of the docs to read.
That would suck, a bit. We should make checksetup note that docbook is
optional, and have checksetup do the doc rebuilding, perhaps?
I think it sounds like a good idea. It seems simpler, all things
considered, than having four different "versions" in CVS of what's
essentially the same thing.
2nd Level Tech Support Engineer, USA
Kerio Technologies, Inc.
2041 Mission College Blvd. Suite 100
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Phone: (408) 496-4500 x23
Fax: (408) 496-6902
More information about the developers