Re: [boost] [range] Should html docs be checked in?

Subject: Re: [boost] [range] Should html docs be checked in?
From: Neil Groves (neil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-28 06:16:17

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Mostafa <mostafa_working_away_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> Can the maintainer(s) of range answer this question that came up in the
> documentation ML:
>
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 02:09:06 -0800, Daniel James <daniel_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>  On 28 December 2013 00:15, Mostafa <mostafa_working_away_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If html files, or any other files for that matter, are auto-generated
>>> then
>>> why are they included in the repo? The reason I ask because this
>>> difference
>>> in boostbook version causes a lot of extraneous noise when I do a git
>>> status. Instead of the three html files I was expecting to be modified
>>> when
>>> I changed a qbk file there are 153 extra html files that show up as
>>> modified.
>>>
>>
>> For many libraries they aren't. It's up to the library maintainer how
>> they're managed. What you can do is rebuild the documentation from a
>> clean checkout and commit that, then later edits shouldn't result in
>> so many changes.
>>
>
I have been generating the html and checking it in. However if there is a
way to transition to a better system I am all for it. I'm catching up on
the changes to the version control and the working process before making a
renewed effort to clear some outstanding trac tickets. I'm sorry that I've
been a little slow in catching up with the process changes. In the
long-term I expect to converge on optimal working practice.

In the interim, if there is something I can do in the short-term that
helps, please let me know. If you simply require permission to do what you
believe is right, then please go ahead with your change. I'm happy to try a
change and revert if it goes wrong.

Thanks for helping,
Neil Groves