Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

- Original Message > From: Niclas Hedhman > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 1:03:51 AM > Subject: Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: > Publishing api docs for Subversion) > > On Tue, Dec 8

Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > this is also the case for Nightly Builds, accessible by the > public; Legally they are "publishing to the public" (i.e. opposite of > 'for private use') and bound by licenses and agreements. > And finally, from Copyright law perspective, you

Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > There's also a world of difference between worldwide distribution > and distribution to a self-selected subgroup. You are right that it is a big "IMHO" of everything here, but "self-selected subgroup" is not a legal term in copyrighted materia

Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> >> So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and >> more in the 'representation of ASF'-space. > > No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate > steps) and a p

Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

uggest his words be considered with a big fat IMHO around them. - Original Message > From: William A. Rowe Jr. > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 12:29:42 AM > Subject: Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was:

Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and > more in the 'representation of ASF'-space. No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate steps) and a publication. Posts like this might attempt to muddy the distinction,

Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: > It's fine to make nightly builds available, including of documentation.  All > I'm suggesting is that, just as nightly builds should not be linked to from > the general download page, nightly documentation should not be linked to > from the ge

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

- Original Message > From: Doug Cutting > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 6:24:18 PM > Subject: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion > > Joe Schaefer wrote: > > Exactly. That's the key difference between a release and a w

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Joe Schaefer wrote: Exactly. That's the key difference between a release and a website, we can't take the release back. Good point. We don't mirror the website on 3rd party sites like we do releases, nor does HTTPD currently package pre-release docs as an archive that folks might download a

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

- Original Message > From: Paul Querna > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 5:34:18 PM > Subject: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > > William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> >> I suspect that renaming /docs/trunk/ to /docs/dev/ would be sufficient and >> follow this best practice? > > I don't know how much folks look at the URL, but I think I've heard Roy > indicate that all developer-

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Doug Cutting wrote: > William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> I suspect that renaming /docs/trunk/ to /docs/dev/ would be >> sufficient and >> follow this best practice? > > I don't know how much folks look at the URL, but I think I've heard > Roy indicate that all developer-specific stuff should be under a

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: I suspect that renaming /docs/trunk/ to /docs/dev/ would be sufficient and follow this best practice? I don't know how much folks look at the URL, but I think I've heard Roy indicate that all developer-specific stuff should be under a dev/ URL. I think it would be

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Doug Cutting wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote: >> So I'm not too clear on what your objections are. >> * Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the >> project Web pages? > > I object to posting these outside of a clearly-marked developer portion > of the project's web site

Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

Doug Cutting wrote: > In the absence of specific policy then *objections* are out of order I have not objected to anything. Forgive me. I did in fact use the verb "object" in a prior message: * Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the project Web pages?

Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

Niall Pemberton wrote: You're taking a policy that applies to release artifacts and stretching it to something it wasn't intended to cover. Applying the rules for releases to significant subsets of releases doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. Subsets are subject to the same copyright

Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > Leo Simons wrote: >> >> So, subversion publishes their trunk API docs nightly, for the >> convenience of their own developers and the surrounding tool developer >> community. All those people mostly want trunk API docs, and they want >> them mo

Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

Leo Simons wrote: So, subversion publishes their trunk API docs nightly, for the convenience of their own developers and the surrounding tool developer community. All those people mostly want trunk API docs, and they want them mostly so they don't have to run doxygen themselves. There's really no

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Branko Čibej wrote: So I'm not too clear on what your objections are. * Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the project Web pages? I object to posting these outside of a clearly-marked developer portion of the project's web site. Then you should start

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Branko Čibej wrote: Actually, we're talking about API documentation which in Subversion's case is generated from the sources, so yes, it is subject to release votes. But only for actual releases. Restricting the publishing of generated API documentation would imply that we should restrict access

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

sebb wrote: > On 03/12/2009, Paul Querna wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: >> > Bhuvaneswaran A wrote: >> >> >> >> We tend to update the api docs generated using doxygen and java doc on >> >> a nightly basis. >> > >> > Unreleased artifacts should be linked

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Doug Cutting wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> I would prefer what I say isn't distorted by selective editing. > > Sorry, that was not my intent. > >>> I'm not talking about the website in general. I'm talking specifically >>> about publishing content primarily intended for inclusion in >>> relea

How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

Hey hey, I wasn't going to say anything but since this is dragging on... On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: > Would we permit someone to mirror other files from trunk on the website? Yes, definitely. Most projects publish their websites by pushing files into SVN. Many projects

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 18:48, Bhuvaneswaran A wrote: > Here's a query related to publishing api docs for Subversion project > periodically. > > We tend to update the api docs generated using doxygen and java doc on > a nightly basis. We are evaluating a workaround to publish it > periodically. Bas

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Niall Pemberton wrote: I would prefer what I say isn't distorted by selective editing. Sorry, that was not my intent. I'm not talking about the website in general. I'm talking specifically about publishing content primarily intended for inclusion in releases. Would Publication & release ar

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> >> What we publish on the ASF websites >> doesn't have to conform to the licensing policy that releases do. I would prefer what I say isn't distorted by selective editing. > I'm not talking about the website in gene

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Niall Pemberton wrote: What we publish on the ASF websites doesn't have to conform to the licensing policy that releases do. I'm not talking about the website in general. I'm talking specifically about publishing content primarily intended for inclusion in releases. Would we permit someone t

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> >> It might be good a good idea to not confuse users trying to find docs >> that relate to a release from that of of the current trunk, but its >> doing incubating projects a disservice to try and make out that >> rele

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Niall Pemberton wrote: It might be good a good idea to not confuse users trying to find docs that relate to a release from that of of the current trunk, but its doing incubating projects a disservice to try and make out that release policy cover the docs they publish on their web site. Don't ou

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > Paul Querna wrote: >> >> >> >> Which is linked from the sidebar everywhere, and on the docs page: >> > > That trunk documentation is at least labelled "dev".  I'd argue it sh

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Paul Querna wrote: Which is linked from the sidebar everywhere, and on the docs page: That trunk documentation is at least labelled "dev". I'd argue it should only be linked to from http://httpd.apache.org/dev/ and that it

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: > Some Apache projects are now using Hudson builds to generate their web > sites from sources stored in svn. The generated site is periodically > rsynced to the correct place people.apache.org. This setup is still a > bit experimental but should

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Hi, On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Bhuvaneswaran A wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Hyrum K. Wright > wrote: >> Back the original question: What's the best/typical way of generating >> and providing these documents?  Subversion is using svnwcsub to >> publish subvesion.apache.org, but I

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Paul Querna wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: >>> Paul Querna wrote: httpd and apr have published doxygen of their trunks periodically, they aren't based on any rele

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

On Dec 3, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Paul Querna wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: >> Paul Querna wrote: >>> >>> httpd and apr have published doxygen of their trunks periodically, >>> they aren't based on any release. >> >> Were these published these on the official public we

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: > Paul Querna wrote: >> >> httpd and apr have published doxygen of their trunks periodically, >> they aren't based on any release. > > Were these published these on the official public website or in the dev/ > section? > > I was under the impress

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Paul Querna wrote: httpd and apr have published doxygen of their trunks periodically, they aren't based on any release. Were these published these on the official public website or in the dev/ section? I was under the impression that released documentation should be treated similarly to rel

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

re we only assume Apache has a license to publish the content). - Original Message > From: sebb > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 9:31:25 PM > Subject: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion > > On 03/12/2009, Paul Querna wrote: > >

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

On 03/12/2009, Paul Querna wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: > > Bhuvaneswaran A wrote: > >> > >> We tend to update the api docs generated using doxygen and java doc on > >> a nightly basis. > > > > Unreleased artifacts should be linked only from the developer po

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: > Bhuvaneswaran A wrote: >> >> We tend to update the api docs generated using doxygen and java doc on >> a nightly basis. > > Unreleased artifacts should be linked only from the developer portion of the > site and should not be hosted on the off

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Bhuvaneswaran A wrote: We tend to update the api docs generated using doxygen and java doc on a nightly basis. Unreleased artifacts should be linked only from the developer portion of the site and should not be hosted on the official project site. You might, e.g., just link to them on the Hu