Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

change name of Documentation to docs #1643

Closed
River-Mochi opened this issue Apr 2, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

change name of Documentation to docs #1643

River-Mochi opened this issue Apr 2, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@River-Mochi
Copy link
Contributor

River-Mochi commented Apr 2, 2023

MkDocs assumes /docs folder exists, it's hard coded to look for and set paths to /docs.
Over-write commands are available, user has to make sure to check and fix things with special commands to alternate desired directories to ensure all the mkdoc's features work as intended.

  • /Documentation to /docs
  • /images to /docs/img (needed to add favicon, reference )

reference:

Just something to consider if you want stuff to "automatically" work without fuss.

@ia
Copy link
Collaborator

ia commented Jun 30, 2023

Hello. I just exactly work these days on rearranging some files/directories inside the repository. So I decided to bring this report up before merge will be accepted. Since some changes are coming anyway, this issue can be addressed & resolved as well. However, I've read your report, and both of the provided links. But I don't see any issue here to be honest with you. So, could you, please, be more specific, why exactly Documentation should be renamed?

Because the way how it works now (thanks to your help as I can see) - there are/[will be] already valid configuration files:

And while I was testing changes, I can confirm that now simple run of
mkdocs build -f scripts/IronOS-mkdocs.yml -d ../site
generates local static documentation in local site/ directory and
mkdocs gh-deploy -f scripts/IronOS-mkdocs.yml -d ../site
deploys it successfully online even for a forked repo in a fully automagical way.

So... what is the issue now exactly? Is this report still valid? Just very curious now. Thanks.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants