Maxwell Kanat-Alexander mkanat at
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
recently, too.

> 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.

Maxwell Kanat-Alexander
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 mailing list