[Catalog-sig] readthedocs.org or packages.python.org?

[Lennart Regebro]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Lennart Regebro <regebro <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Packages.python.org support any HTML, I think, right?
>>
>> That said, is anyone using it without with Sphinx?
>
> That's not the only difference: it also requires that your project be in a
> public Mercurial or Git repository that RTD can pull from. For almost all cases,
> this is fine - but for me, for at least one project, I can't use RTD. That's
> because the project (python-gnupg) doesn't have its own repository, it's part of
> a larger repository that can't be public. The project is open source and I could
> of course pull it into a separate repository, but I would lose the history
> without doing a bit of work to try and keep it. I may well undertake this at
> some point, but until then, RTD is not usable for that project. And so it may be
> for other projects too, but for different reasons.
>
> While I find the RTD integration with DVCS very convenient, I like the fact
> about packages.python.org that you can just upload a directory of documentation,
> and there is distutils support for this. If we were to lose packages.python.org
> in favour of RTD, then unless RTD accepted HTML bundles like packages.python.org
> does, distutils/Distribute/setuptools would presumably break when one tried to
> do an upload_doc.

So all-in-all, if we marget packages.p.o. and RTD somehow, then the
functionality of RTD must be enhanced, which may not be what the RTD
people want?

//Lennart