Re: docs-build as an svn external?

[André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>]

* Rich Bowen wrote: 


> Is there any particular reason *not* to have docs-build as an svn
> external under the docs/manual directory?
>
> (It's about 12M while the entire httpd-trunk checkout is 223M, so it's
> about a 5% size increase.)

IIRC just that. Most developers (committer or not) don't need it.

nd

Re: docs-build as an svn external?

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 4/9/2010 3:21 PM, André Malo wrote:
> * Rich Bowen wrote: 
> 
> 
>> Is there any particular reason *not* to have docs-build as an svn
>> external under the docs/manual directory?
>>
>> (It's about 12M while the entire httpd-trunk checkout is 223M, so it's
>> about a 5% size increase.)
> 
> IIRC just that. Most developers (committer or not) don't need it.

When you consider that it would be really nice if people throwing new
modules at trunk would stop to at least outline them (as I did with mod_fcgid
before Jeff and others jumped in to fill in the descriptions), that would be
considerable progress.

Let's just add the docs build.  Ripping apart the docs build, you may as well
pull all the source .xml's as well.  This may be something to consider for
the release tarball, but for dev checkouts the current schema is just odd.

I would not mind if we kept one repository and used it as an external, but
I am really worried that we don't have moving targets on a tag, so in order
to tag complete, it becomes necessary to substitute svn cp's for each svn
external.