Re: Documentation issues on the new website

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org> writes:

> However, given that everyone likes building docs from CVS at the moment (see
> API docs in the website, and the hideous methods used to make that work),
> I've been looking at doing that.
> 
> It's coming to a point where I have to choose (note that I could do both
> with a bit of extra hackery).
> 
> It would just require some metadata in the tree to say which module and path
> the doc files come from in CVS, the appropriate tag or branch, and the root
> file (makes it easy to provide different document versions simultaneously,
> for 2.1 and 2.0, say). The build system would automagically check it out and
> build it as if it were already part of the tree.

Note that this wouldn't work for the API docs ...the API docs
Docbook files aren't checked into CVS, they are *generated*
using information from the source code, and introspection
of the built libraries.

But it does sound like it might be a useful capability in
some cases... it would be nice if every document that we put
on the web site didn't need to be copied into the web module.
Definitely shouldn't block the new web site going live, though :-)

Regards,
                                        Owen