Re: Request for setup of new repositories

Takashi Sakamoto
2022-05-25T01:43:23Z

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.

Thanks