Skip to content

Conversation

@mziccard
Copy link
Contributor

@mziccard mziccard commented Nov 1, 2016

This adds javadoc to gh-pages. This should not be merged until we release 0.5.0.

@mziccard
Copy link
Contributor Author

mziccard commented Nov 1, 2016

@lesv
Copy link
Contributor

lesv commented Nov 1, 2016

LGTM - in principle - I'm wondering if we shouldn't publish this somewhere else, such as googlecloudplatform.github.io so it can actually be used / accessed?

Or should I enlist a TW to get it published at d.g.c somewhere such as /identity ??

@lesv
Copy link
Contributor

lesv commented Nov 1, 2016

Is there a reason you prefer pushing this to the gh-pages branch, rather than to a /docs folder?

Note - I'm ok, with the branch, but /docs seems like it might be better for long term maintenance.

@mziccard
Copy link
Contributor Author

mziccard commented Nov 1, 2016

@lesv I prefer to keep javadocs, sites, etc.. out of the codebase as they tend to grow in size when you preserve them for older versions (and we should preserve them for older versions).

As a contributor of the library I wouldn't want to check out several mb of javadoc (each version is ~1mb) along with the code I want to contribute to.

But this is just a personal preference and I am happy to change. Why do you think it would be better for long term maintenance?

@anthmgoogle
Copy link
Contributor

I'm in favor of having this github hosted. Since this particular library is much broader than Cloud, I would recommend hosting the doc with this repo rather than in the google-cloud docs. Looks like we need to wait for a release first.

@lesv
Copy link
Contributor

lesv commented Nov 1, 2016

SGTM - I'm ok w/ doing it on the gh-pages. Good to link from google-cloud-java to here.

@mziccard mziccard merged commit d0bd138 into googleapis:gh-pages Nov 3, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants