Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 19:13:58 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> To: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> Cc: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@freebsd.org>, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] RELNOTESng for 5-CURRENT Message-ID: <20010427021358.8B57D3E2A@bazooka.unixfreak.org> In-Reply-To: <20010426195815.B77194@canyon.nothing-going-on.org>; from nik@freebsd.org on "Thu, 26 Apr 2001 19:58:16 %2B0100"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ dropping -current ] Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> writes: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 09:58:43AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote: > > This problem (which I agree is valid) is not so much a problem as to > > where the release notes live, but the fact that one needs to actually > > build human-readable renderings of them. If people can't be bothered > > to install the docproj port and the doc/ tree to get release notes > > living in src/, putting the release notes in doc/ sure isn't going to > > help. It's trivial to put the release notes for -RELEASE versions up > > (the Web site does this already), and Dima thinks it's possible to do > > this for -CURRENT too (and -STABLE if and when it's applicable). > > I think this, as a whole, is a non-problem. It's trivial to script a > daily build of the release notes and mirror it to the FTP site (and/or > include it in the twice daily build of the web site). I'll see about hooking it into the web site when it's committed. > > > Also, if we want to put these on the website then it means that anyone > > > doing so will need to have checked out www/, doc/, and src/release/ > > > trees. > > > > I got the impression that this would not be hard. They don't need to > > have all of src/ checked out, and if enough people complain about it, we > > > can probably make another module which is just the RELNOTESng part of > > src/release. > > I think that would be a definite requirement. We could even make > release/ a top level directory, alongside src/, doc/, and ports/. The only thing I don't like about this is that now we're growing large webs of dependencies. For example, tanget to this I'd like to have one entity file that defines rel.current for the web site, the docs, and the relnotes (the latter will need two of those definitions depending on the branch, but that's solvable). This is easy to do for docs and relnotes, but leaves the web site--which needs it the most--out in the cold. The problem is that having doc/ doesn't mean we have www/, and visa versa. Adding a release/ will make it worse. If we have release/, are we guaranteed to have doc/? How about www/? Does doc/ need release/? Et cetera. Ideally, having www/ would imply having doc/. releases/ or src/release/ can be optional. I think wosch will shoot anyone who suggests getting rid of the WEB_ONLY knob, though. Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010427021358.8B57D3E2A>