I don’t see any downsides to this approach. We already do this for other assets like examples, native, site, and benchmarks.
> On Jun 14, 2022, at 12:03 PM, Dave Barnes <dbar...@apache.org> wrote: > > ⚠ External Email > > I'd like to move the doc sources for the Geode User Guide from the code > repo > (https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode&data=05%7C01%7Cjabarrett%40vmware.com%7C79019270b63a4ee130ba08da4e3a2c77%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637908309002941176%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YMlTGuvk%2FU1bbW7%2F60bhMcO09PKcE3Tb2ew3ymlKySw%3D&reserved=0) > to a separate geode-docs repo. > > The primary reason is to allow docs to cycle at their own rate, rather than > in lock-step with the code. The present arrangement causes problems during > releases, when code is frozen (including doc sources) to prepare a release > candidate. This is exactly the time when critical last-minute doc changes > are needed, but such changes are forbidden due to the code freeze. > > I have participated in the Geode project since its inception, and can > confidently state that this conflict arises with nearly every Geode > release. Setting up the docs in a separate repo would alleviate this > regularly-recurring, counter-intuitive situation. > > Of note: The docs directories and toolset are almost entirely independent > of directories and tools needed for code development and release, so > removal of the doc sources from the Geode code repo should be painless for > developers. > > Observations and opinions welcome... > > Dave Barnes > > ________________________________ > > ⚠ External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
