adoble
commented
5 years ago -
The reason for the rejection was that it was not backward compatible. This doesn’t apply to adr-j as the directories used for the ADRs is stored in the
adr.propertiesfile (docPath). This means that users do not have to do anything with previously initialized projects. -
I used
docoriginally to preserve the behavior of the original ADR tool. I think we have come a long way since then and this is no longer a requirement. -
13 could mean that if users really wanted to change from
doctodocsin an existing project they could do so. Note, theconfigcommand is more complicated than I first thought as config changes imply making a lot of changes to existing projects. Not impossible, it's just that I have not got around to it. -
I would prefer that we use in this repository the default. Changing to
docsmeans a bit of fiddling around (a test for the config command?). -
As we are now using semantic versioning , have to consider if this change is an "incompatible API change" . In which case I would prefer to wait until we have accrued enough changes (e.g. #4, #13 plus anything else that's wanted) to justify a 4.0.0 release. What do you think?
In short, I'm sympathetic to the idea, just need consider the above.
I would propose to rename
doctodocs(at least in this repository) to enable rendering of the docs using gh-pages (see https://help.github.com/en/articles/configuring-a-publishing-source-for-github-pages) and to be consistent to other GitHub repositories.I know that adr-tools rejected that proposal: https://github.com/npryce/adr-tools/issues/39 - maybe, you can spend a thought regarding that, too.