Documentation

[Steven Suson]

Interestingly enough, my company just began formalizing a Code 
Management Policy. One of the things that we have already established is 
that NO derived files (i.e. files that are somehow generated from one or 
more other files) will be in CVS.

Steven Suson

David Miller wrote:

>On 1/28/2004 8:48 AM -0800, Jon Wilmoth wrote:
>
>  
>
>>As I submitted the first patch for the "customizable terminology"
>>contribution, I'm willing to help with the documentation effort.  How
>>should I submit this info?
>>    
>>
>
>As patches to the existing XML files preferably. :)  There's lots of open
>documentation bugs on things that need to be fixed up.
>
>We're still supporting 2.16, too, so the docs on the 2.16 branch need any
>changes you submit also (if they're applicable to 2.16).
>
>  
>
>>I think the move to the xml definition is great and will lower the
>>barrier to entry for following up code contributions with documentation
>>so others are aware of the functionality and benefit fully from it.  I'd
>>also be willing to help develop the xsl stylesheets for at least the
>>HTML and Text versions.  I'm not sure PDF can be generated with simple
>>XSL.
>>    
>>
>
>We've done that already, a couple years ago.  Look at the "README.docs" and
>"makedocs.pl" scripts in your docs directory. :)  (not to mention the xml
>directory itself ;)
>
>What's in question is that we currently run the makedocs.pl script then cvs
>commit the compiled results (the html, text, and pdf).  We're discussing
>the possibility of removing the (compiled) html, text, and pdf from cvs,
>and letting the website generate them on checkout when there are changes to
>the xml.
>  
>