\o/
Jacques
Le 28/01/2018 à 11:12, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
Like Michael I think it is also a minor point. The reason I chose this
structure is because it is the default one for asciidoctor and is flexible
for the future, so Paul also makes a good point. Any structure is fine by
me, the real important work is getting the documentation right which is
very exciting to me.
I will create a patch soon for a base level structure and publishing
options for both HTML and PDF. It would be fantastic if we can unify _all_
of our documentation here including stuff currently in the wiki. This way
any changes to code are reflected (probably in the same commit) with the
relevant documentation.
I think we should start to consider maybe forming a team willing to help.
This is a big, but extremely important thing to have. If we do this right
then I think adoption rates would increase and our community would get
larger.
On Jan 28, 2018 12:19 PM, "Michael Brohl" <michael.br...@ecomify.de> wrote:
Hi Paul,
this is only a minor point for me, it just saves one folder/structure level.
If we want to stay open for other documentation frameworks in the future,
it might be better to keep the proposed structure.
Best regards,
Michael
Am 28.01.18 um 02:54 schrieb Paul Foxworthy:
On 26 January 2018 at 19:53, Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de> wrote:
with a small modification: I don't think we'll need a two-folder structure
/docs/asciidoc, only /docs should be sufficient, no?
Hi Michael,
We have streamlined the build system in other places by having folders for
the source language: groovyScripts, minilang, src/main/java .
It means Groovy and other build tools can have default rules for what to do
with the contents of a language folder, and allows for the possibility of
other languages in future if necessary.
The extra layer is only a minor nuisance. I think I'd prefer to keep it.
What do you see as the disadvantages?
Cheers
Paul Foxworthy
