On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Vinay Sajip <[email protected]> wrote: > Lennart Regebro <regebro <at> gmail.com> writes: >> >> Packages.python.org support any HTML, I think, right? >> >> That said, is anyone using it without with Sphinx? > > That's not the only difference: it also requires that your project be in a > public Mercurial or Git repository that RTD can pull from. For almost all > cases, > this is fine - but for me, for at least one project, I can't use RTD. That's > because the project (python-gnupg) doesn't have its own repository, it's part > of > a larger repository that can't be public. The project is open source and I > could > of course pull it into a separate repository, but I would lose the history > without doing a bit of work to try and keep it. I may well undertake this at > some point, but until then, RTD is not usable for that project. And so it may > be > for other projects too, but for different reasons. > > While I find the RTD integration with DVCS very convenient, I like the fact > about packages.python.org that you can just upload a directory of > documentation, > and there is distutils support for this. If we were to lose > packages.python.org > in favour of RTD, then unless RTD accepted HTML bundles like > packages.python.org > does, distutils/Distribute/setuptools would presumably break when one tried to > do an upload_doc.
So all-in-all, if we marget packages.p.o. and RTD somehow, then the functionality of RTD must be enhanced, which may not be what the RTD people want? //Lennart _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
