[Catalyst-dev] Catalyst::Manual

[hkclark at gmail.com]

On 10/9/06, Jonathan Rockway <jon at jrock.us> wrote:
> I think we should avoid bundling C::M with C::D.  If we change the manual,
> then we have to re-release C::D, which is unnecessary.  I'd like to separate
> out C::M as its own dist and make it a prereq for C::D.  I think this is what
> mst was suggesting on the IRC channel, although I could be wrong.
>
> I'd also like to keep TCT separate, since the tutorial is separate logically
> from the manual, and TCT brings in some other tasty bits, like the complete
> sample app, and all the plugins (etc.) mentioned in the tutorial.
>
> So I vote for the simple change of making C::M its own dist, and making C::D
> depend on that.  The dep tree would look like:
>
> Task::Catalyst::Tutorial
>   C::Devel
>     C::Runtime
>     C::Manual
>

Hi Everyone,

I can see the wisdom in having Catalyst::Manual separate from
Catalyst::Devel -- there are pros & cons on both sides.  However, it
seems to me that the Manual and the Tutorial should be together... as
Aristotle points out: the fewer things people have to install the
better (which is one reason I like the idea of just sticking it in
Catalyst::Devel... yes that could lead to "extra" updates to that
module, but: 1) it cuts down on the things people have to install &
track, 2) it's devel vs. production/runtime, so people shouldn't mind
the changes, 3) it's not like we release docs all that often, so it's
not like it should be that frequent of an event, 4) C::D is small, so
it would be easy to add it there).  I could be wrong, but I think most
newcomers would expect the tutorial and the manual to all be together.

My vote is that we try to come to consensus pretty soon so we can get
the link in the current tutorial fixed.  I have a "sort of work
aroun": in place, but it's far from ideal.

Thanks,
Kennedy