> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 01:13:04PM +0200, Victor Toso wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:08:55AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > Just to make it clear... do you mean spice-server repository? > > > > Yes. We already have the (old) docs there and I don't see a reason to > > move it to protocol/common/website git... > > For what it's worth, once upon a time, there was no spice-common > submodule, and there was no spice-gtk either, everything (client and > server) was in spice/, so the docs were there too. Then spice-gtk was > created, and spice-common/ was split up as a submodule to share code > between the 2. The doc stayed in spice/, but I would not say this was an > explicit decision :) > > I still think that the .proto files (and so this doc) belongs to > spice-protocol, but at this point this has not happened :) > > With that said, no strong feeling where it belongs, along with the > existing documentation works for me even if a bit odd, in spice-common > makes sense to me too. > > Christophe > I think choices proposed was: - spice-common pro: files documented (.proto and python) are there cons: there are no doc directory - spice-procotol pro: looks a good repository name cons: no files cons: no doc directory - spice-server pro: already documentation cons: not strictly related - website pro: easy to publish cons: website should contain released state, not development My choice order is: - spice-server - spice-common - website - spice-protocol Frediano _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel