Good question Steve. I think we initially decided that at the least user facing docs should live in svn and then the rest in the wiki. But I think a strong case can be made for design docs in svn as well. I think it will force people to keep the design doc in sync with the code.
Maybe we should try to get some consensus around where exactly to place these docs. Rajith On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Jonathan Robie <jonathan.ro...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 04/30/2010 11:02 AM, Steve Huston wrote: >> >> Hi Jonathan, >> >> I am going to write up a new design doc for another store module for >> Windows. Where is the best place for this in the new scheme of things? I >> would ordinarily put it in the wiki (that is, if it worked ;-) but is >> that still the best place for it? >> > > If the Wiki still worked (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2671), > that would be a reasonable place to put it. I'd rather see design docs in > the source code tree, perhaps in the place where the new module is supposed > to live. That way, if I'm looking at the code, I also have the design > documentation that describes the code. > > For instance, perhaps we could agree that any time you have foo/src, foo/doc > is the right place to put design documentation that describes that source? > And in some directories where there is no ./src subdirectory, like > qpid/cpp/rubygen, we can just add ./doc as needed. > > We could describe that convention in a README at the top level. > > Does this sound good? > > Jonathan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > > -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
