Status of splitting off docs?
kapil.thangavelu at canonical.com
Mon Nov 28 22:04:05 UTC 2011
Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of Mon Nov 28 16:59:08 -0500 2011:
> Excerpts from Kapil Thangavelu's message of Mon Nov 28 11:35:08 -0800 2011:
> > Excerpts from Gustavo Niemeyer's message of Mon Nov 28 13:37:41 -0500 2011:
> > > > It was my understanding at UDS that we were going to split the docs
> > > (...)
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Sounds very sensible.
> > >
> > Sounds good to me. I suggest we capture as a doc series @ lp:juju/docs. We can
> > pull it in when cutting tarballs or packages so the source gets distributed with
> > docs.
> If we're going to put it in tarballs (we're going to do tarballs!!? w00t),
> why wouldn't it just be part of lp:juju but subject to a different
> review process?
The original goal was it would be easier to have a different review policy for a
different repo, and possibly a different license for the docs and/or obviate the
need for a CLA.
I recall you advocating @ UDS that mixed license source trees where fine, and
the docs inline to the source tree had some inherent benefit.
More information about the Juju