Request for setup of new repositories

[Jaroslav Kysela]

On 25. 05. 22 3:42, Takashi Sakamoto wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 02:36:19PM +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
>> On 24. 05. 22 13:25, Takashi Sakamoto wrote:
>>> Hi Jaroslav,
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 09:49:52PM +0900, Takashi Sakamoto wrote:
>>>> At present I prefer separated pages from source since the pages can be
>>>> generated from the source, however as you say the inclusive way is worth
>>>> to reduce repository maintained by the project. I test the idea later in
>>>> my libhinoko repository. When it looks well, I'll request you for
>>>> configuration change.
>>>
>>> I'd like to fix the issue for the URL of documentation before releasing
>>> libhitaki since I put the URL to configuration for gi-docgen.
>>>
>>> I'm investigating to put the documentation into the same repository
>>> where source is maintained, however I prefer to separate the two into
>>> different repositories. Then I suppose it good to put several
>>> documentations into one repository rather than maintaining them in
>>> different repositories.
>>>
>>> At present, three repositories are maintained for documentations:
>>>
>>> * https://github.com/alsa-project/alsa-gobject-docs
>>> * https://github.com/alsa-project/libhinawa-docs
>>> * https://github.com/alsa-project/libhitaki-doc
>>>
>>> Let us consolidate them in one repository. For example, by referring to
>>> team name:
>>>
>>> * https://github.com/alsa-project/gobject-introspection-docs/
>>>
>>> The documentations are expected to be public under below URL:
>>>
>>> * https://alsa-project.github.io/gobject-introspection-docs/alsa-gobject/
>>> * https://alsa-project.github.io/gobject-introspection-docs/hinawa/
>>> * https://alsa-project.github.io/gobject-introspection-docs/hitaki/
>>>
>>> I'd like to ask your opinion about the idea.
>>
>> Thanks for this idea. I just noted that github allows to specify a branch
>> for the git pages (github.io). Do you think that a 'doc' or 'docs' branch in
>> the separate source repos will be sufficient for your work? It may be more
>> logical than having a common doc repo (logical URLs) and things (source and
>> generated pages) will not mix together.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion. Indeed, we can choose the way to put
> documentation to specific branch in the repository. I've already
> investigated the way then had complexed feeling.
> 
> ...To be honest, I'd like to avoid it, as much as possible, in a point
> of the essential concept in source control management. The branching
> idea forces to put several histories disconnected each other into one
> repository. It's surely available technically, however I feel sort of
> awkward somehow.
> 
> (I think I'm enough conservative when using tools. I feel something
> shooting myself in the foot when doing it. It perhaps comes from my
> experience under UNIX-like environment...)
> 
> The separated common repository for documents had room for integration of
> documentation. For example, I can put library documentations as well as
> overview page for included software such like Rust crates. It's flexible
> and logical in a view of top level of software stack.

It's fine for me. The gobject-introspection-docs is created now.

					Jaroslav

-- 
Jaroslav Kysela <perex at perex.cz>
Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc.