search

riscv / configuration-structure

RISC-V Configuration Structure
https://jira.riscv.org/browse/RVG-50
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
36 stars 16 forks source link

Convert the project to the RISC-V docs-template. #70

Closed jjscheel closed 2 years ago

jjscheel commented 2 years ago

Merging updates to adopt the RISC-V document template (#68)

Signed-off-by: Jeff Scheel jeff@riscv.org

timsifive commented 2 years ago

Can you add the git submodule explanation you put into #68 to the README.md?

cetola commented 2 years ago

@jjscheel If you remove the "-r asciidoctor-diagram" flag from the Makefile edits in this commit, the PR will build just fine.

This brings up the larger question. Do you think it's better to keep the builds consistent across repos, or allow repos to simplify their builds if applicable? This repo is a good example of this idea.

I don't have a strong opinion but if we allow folks to keep their builds as simple as possible it does save us GitHub action cycles (which if free, are limited for our Org). The tradeoff is that each spec's build script will be unique rather than mirroring the docs-spec-template.

jjscheel commented 2 years ago

@cetola, my personal preference is to only enable the features/functions one needs. So, your suggestion might be better than re-working the Git Actions.

First thing tomorrow, I'll update the Makefile and either submit a new PR or try and add it to this one.

Sound, ok, @timsifive?

changab commented 2 years ago

Not sure if org has this or not? Could we have a label for PR that triggers Git action to convert the asciidoc to PDF, with the repo-specific asciidoc attributes and build options? Then merge the PDF to repo automatically. Thus we don't have to set up the local environment for asciidoc-pdf and run it locally.

jjscheel commented 2 years ago

Will cleanup and re-submit.

jjscheel commented 2 years ago

@changab, FWIW, I think your question is a fair one. The build actions were added by @timsifive very recently (just before my submission), not by my proposed patch. As such, I'd suggest we move your discussion to a new issue.

In addition, I'd note that the docs-dev-guide project does what you suggest.