Re: libstdc++-v3 2.90.9

[Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>]

>     1)  Copy the docs repository into the wwwdocs repository, thus
>         preserving history.
>     2)  Do not create any links into the new htdocs/libstdc++/ tree
>         until everything works.
>     3)  Change structure of new libstdc++ docs as necessary to work with
>         the wwwdocs preprocessing.
>     4)  Remove the contents of the docs dir, replace with a pointer
>         to the new pages.  Explain that there will be docs there only
>         in snapshots and releases.
>     5)  Start a new ChangeLog in wwwdocs/htdocs/libstdc++ to keep track
>         (it still is official documentation, after all).

Ok. I'm a bit confused. I take it libstdc++-v3/docs is now going to be 
replaced by wwwdocs/htdocs/libstdc++?

I'm assuming there's a good reason why we can't just keep the docs as 
part of the libstdc++-v3 source distribution, as is currently the case? I 
kind of liked the current setup, but I understand if it somehow isn't 
going to work.

> I'm not entirely thrilled with (4), since it would mean that users checking
> out CVS won't get the local copies of the build instructions.  They'd still
> be on the web, but that's an extra step, and much slower besides.  Hmm.

Indeed.

> We tried to think up some way of getting help from CVS modules, like having
> "libstdc++-v3" actually check out the real sources *and* the web pages,
> and silently do a merge on the local user's end.  That ain't gonna happen;
> the directory trees are too far apart for the modules trick to work, and
> we can't have the CVS client execute arbitrary shell commands to mv stuff
> around (for good reason).

Hmm. If these are now going to be two separate modules, then it seems 
ill-advised to try and force the old "unified" behavior onto two disjoint 
entities. Let's try to keep this simple.....

-benjamin