-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Unintended files in 1.84.0 release archives #57
Comments
@ashtum Perhaps, this is related to the new search facility on the website? |
No, the search facility doesn't add anything to the libraries documentation and it is not part of the release process. The search index is generated by crawling the documentation files in the release archives. It appears that |
Thanks. @vinniefalco, could you look into this? From the contents, it seems to be related to C++ Alliance. |
@Lastique this is a step towards converting boost documentation to Antora. |
I don't know anything about Antora, but it doesn't seem to me that this conversion should result in leaving a mess in Boost release packages. If those files are temporary, they should be removed before packaging (and placed under |
cc: @alandefreitas |
The |
#58 removed the files from the Before creating the PR, I discussed what we could do about the Considering the Antora directory layout, the solutions proposed so far were for the
This conversation ended up dying because I think people simply weren't interested enough. But we can do this discussion to find the best solution here and update the scripts accordingly. |
This is only an idea, but if it's currently ../_ (because perhaps a script was run from ../) , could it be switched to ../../_ (by running the script from ../../ , one directory higher up) and then nothing needs to be patched? |
I think I made a mistake talking about
This is nice because when it's copied into So the That third suggestion was to move only So |
Sorry, I must be missing something, but I still don't understand why it is a problem to move Note that links to library documentation are customizable in |
Yes. This assumption is incorrect.
Yes. This is exactly the discussion here: #57 (comment). That is, where this should go. |
Shared in what way? It looks to me that this directory does not contain anything that is specific to each of the libraries using it. Which means, we could duplicate it under each of the What I'm saying is that |
The
Correct. The content is not specific to any library. They're shared between the libraries.
I think duplicating it for every library that needs it is not something we even did or should consider. Putting it somewhere under
Yes. That's correct. It's the second option suggested above.
That I don't agree. I think we should need some form of consensus on where to put it.
I think any location is just as easy. |
It would be nice if this was resolved before the 1.85 release. |
All we need is a reasonable suggestion of a new location for these documentation files. It could be |
I'm sorry, but you're the one who adds support for Antora, aren't you? Who else but you is going to make this decision? As the interested party, you either do what is needed to make it work or you revert the changes and let someone else do it. There were two reasonable locations suggested here, any of them would do. If you need more input, you could ask on the ML or mention someone particular here, but please don't stall the issue because you don't want to be responsible for the decision. |
Sorry... what were they? |
Should I mention those for the fourth time? |
That's a comment I wrote and I was the one who mentioned it. There's no proposal for any concrete location in there. All it says is "Find another directory for Antora documentation (where?)". |
It's not our job to propose things to you. You are the source of the problem. Fix it. If you want to give us several solution options from which we're to choose, we can do that. Otherwise, were I a release manager, I would have already added |
The three comments I linked are comments by me and they are all mentioning two locations: |
As I said, these are not reasonable locations to choose from.
You could have listed it only once if you bothered to read why it doesn't work.
OK. I propose I'll start writing the PR. |
|
Me too.
And yet you chose it. That directory is used for libraries that build their docs there and for common resources, such as images and stylesheets shared between libraries. I see no problem storing shared Antora resources there.
I don't see where this is explained. |
Somewhere in |
Please be professional |
Wow, I didn't know I had to state the obvious that no, you don't have to dump the files directly in But whatever, the point is moot now. |
fix #57 I will merge this into `develop` and if there are no problems it can be merged into `master` tomorrow, or soon.
In
boost_1_84_0.tar.bz2
, there are the following files added inlibs
, compared to 1.83.0 release:_
directory, with a set of nested directories and files with web-related content404.html
search-index.js
These files seem to be related to some online search engine, and don't seem like they should be included in a Boost release.
Please, remove them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: