On 03/27/2017 10:00 AM, Matthieu Huin wrote: > o/ > > what's the expected gain from this? better targeted CI jobs?
Well the main goal is modularity. Right now, we are bound to rebuild the doc, the config and the release each time there is a change on the main repository. > because I'm > afraid the documentation will see even less love this way. And tagging and > generating a common CHANGELOG across all subprojects (which we should > already do with managesf, cauth, sfmanager and pysflib but I'm not sure we > actually do...) would become increasingly difficult, wouldn't it? > Regarding the doc, the good news is that the mechanic is already in place, managesf and sfmanager already produces their own documentation and the main softwarefactory-doc package references those. Now regarding the main CHANGELOG for the project, then it makes even more sense to have it in a page/website repository so that we don't have to bother with branches. Why do you think it would be more difficult to make doc change to a different repo? -Tristan > just my 2 cents > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Tristan Cacqueray <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello folks, >> >> with the recent packaging effort, it seems like the main >> software-factory repository could be split further: >> >> * sf-docs for docs/ >> * sf-config for config/ >> * sf-release for upgrade/ >> * release.softwarefactory-project.io (or github similar page) for the >> README >> * sf-ci for the rest >> >> What do you think? >> -Tristan >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwarefactory-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/softwarefactory-dev >> >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Softwarefactory-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/softwarefactory-dev
