It would be easy to make lsstDoxygen take a list of products, or you could add a new product with no directory and a table file listing e.g. lsst_apps + a set of obs files.

Old Watchers and Newly Added Watchers: I'm agnostic on this issue. I'd like guidance on what is wanted wrt Project documentation support.

• Will we be creating a doxydoc which embeds all of {lsst-core, sims, qserv}. - where lsst-core includes (future) MW doxydoc, too.
  * In the future when we have separate buildslaves for each of {lsst-core, sims, qserv}

  , will we generate separate doxydocs for each product set?

• Should all viable camera specific packages be included in the lsst-core doxydoc?
  • then I'd like to know which are considered viable these days {obs_cfht obs_lsstSim obs_sdss obs_sst obs_subaru obs_wiyn}

If there is no comment, then I will create a new package which includes lsst_distrib and all the obs_* that are viable.

Here's what I'd like, but I don't know if you can do it with the tools available:

• Each top-level product builds its own doxygen (and sphinx).
• One or more separate products are created for plugin packages like the obs_* packages.
• Shared packages are "owned" by lsst_distrib.
• All the documentation is published to the same site, so that product pages can link to shared package pages. A (perhaps manual) directory page points to each top-level product.

I believe that obs_cfht, obs_lsstSim, obs_sdss, and obs_subaru are "viable" in the sense that we support them and expect them to work as part of a release. If they're not currently in that state, they should be fixed. obs_sst and obs_wiyn seem to me to be contributed, and perhaps should be moved out of LSST/DMS.

Re KT's comment:

Each top-level product builds its own doxygen (and sphinx).

I assume that you mean one documentation product, generated by some toolset (breathe?) that unifies doxygen + sphinx

Is this proposal supposed to cover all products, or only obs packages?

The reason why we use lsstDoxygen is to allow links to packages that you don't depend on (e.g. meas_algorithms can refer to pipe_tasks), and to allow us to generate documentation of peer packages (e.g. the LSST_task_documentation group). Why don't you just want to add the obs_* packages to this master build?

I was trying to separate out all plugins, which might be "official" or might be supported by others, from the main code base. But I could see drawing the dividing line between "official" and "unofficial" instead. I'd rather not fold obs_sst and obs_wiyn into the master build.

My intent was to ensure that we have the tooling to handle an "ecosystem" model with multiple products, some official and some unofficial, relying on common core packages. I worry that the "Borg" model of assimilating all code into a single build (or, worse, repo or package) might be unsustainable.

Hey folks,

FYI I am entering three documentation-related epics in W15 relating to documentation infrastructure/tooling. Step one is to get some agreement on the tooling but I think we'd all be surprised at this point if sphinx wasn't involved

I think this ticket is fleshing out a requirement for this work, and unless somebody corrects me I'll revisit this as part of that epic unless it can't wait for some reason?

At this point I am agnostic about the disposition of the obs_ stuff, but I certainly agree that there should be a mechanism for easily dealing differently with "first party" versus "contributed" packages, whether we decide to use it at this point or not. That way we can change our minds later.

I am thinking that if DM-13074 switches from datarel to lsst_distrib as the anchor package that the obs packages would be documented.

I was going to say that this ticket no longer seems to be relevant, but then I realized that obs_subaru still hasn't been added to pipelines.lsst.io