You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
While creating the user docs for the catalog in order to provide instructions for how users can contribute to the catalog, this question came up: should there be ABCD-J level docs, and should the catalog docs be a subset of that? Or should we keep the catalog docs to the catalog and leave other higher-level decisions for future consideration?
If we decide to do top-level docs, with catalog instructions forming a part of that, we should probably have a separate repo in the abcd-j org for that, and then the content of user-docs in the current repo should move there.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This has been resolved as follows in the past weeks:
the catalog sources are located in the catalog subdirectory of this repo, which is where the data.abcd-j.de site is deployed from (not with github pages anymore)
the documentation is located in docs subdirectory (which was previously used for the catalog sources), where github pages deploys docs to rdm.abcd-j.de (custom domain)
the RDM docs are catalog-level at the moment and could include other RDM-related content in future (e.g. a "For developers" section that details how to update the catalog)
ABCD-J project-level docs are currently considered too general to have, but might be added in future if the need arises
While creating the user docs for the catalog in order to provide instructions for how users can contribute to the catalog, this question came up: should there be ABCD-J level docs, and should the catalog docs be a subset of that? Or should we keep the catalog docs to the catalog and leave other higher-level decisions for future consideration?
If we decide to do top-level docs, with catalog instructions forming a part of that, we should probably have a separate repo in the abcd-j org for that, and then the content of
user-docs
in the current repo should move there.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: