Hi Alex, I think the best solution is to remove the document links for Armband on docs.opnfv.org (or have them linked to Fuel documentation). But keep the docs directory in your repo if things would change in the future.
//Sofia From: Raymond Paik <rp...@linuxfoundation.org> Date: Monday, 16 October 2017 at 05:26 To: Alexandru Avadanii <alexandru.avada...@enea.com> Cc: Sofia Wallin <sofia.wal...@ericsson.com>, "dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org" <dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>, OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>, Cristina Pauna <cristina.pa...@enea.com>, Bob Monkman <bob.monk...@arm.com> Subject: Re: [docs] Fuel and Armband merged documentation Hi Alex, I think it makes sense for Armband team to have a separate documentation if you are going have support of other installers (e.g. Apex or JOID) in the future.... I agree that replicating docs is wasteful, but do you think this would continue beyond Euphrates? Thanks, Ray On Sunday, October 15, 2017, Alexandru Avadanii <alexandru.avada...@enea.com<mailto:alexandru.avada...@enea.com>> wrote: Hi, During the E release cycle, Fuel and Armband projects merged their documentation(s). Currently, the contents of Fuel's 'docs/' dir describe usage for both architecture. To keep the old behavior unchanged, we duplicated that docs dir in Armband for now. Going forward, I think building the same documentation twice is wasteful and unnecessary. How do you think we should proceed in this case? We can agree that Armband project won't publish any docs going further, and just remove the docs dir from our repo. Or we can add a stub pointing to the Fuel project. Please let us know what you think. Thank you, Alex
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
