tl;dr: The dub documentation got split from the dub-registry repository and now lives on https://dub.pm (https://github.com/dlang/dub-docs).

Motivation:
-----------

- makes building the dub-registry faster
- people hosting a mirror or a private instance don't need to host the documentation too
- allows us to use a separate, more modern design for the dub docs (proposals are welcome!)
- makes it easier for people contributing the docs (less code and dependencies to build)
- allows us to remove the menu header at code.dlang.org and replace it with a nice, modern searchbar
- makes the deployment for the documentation easier (they are static
HTML after all) and we have already setup continuous deployment for the documentation (via Netlify)

As always, ideas and PRs to make DUB's documentation better are welcome.

PS: Of course all old documentation links will redirect to dub.pm

On Thursday, 19 July 2018 at 09:39:04 UTC, Seb wrote:
> tl;dr: The dub documentation got split from the dub-registry repository and now lives on https://dub.pm (https://github.com/dlang/dub-docs).
>
> Motivation:
> -----------
>
> - makes building the dub-registry faster
> - people hosting a mirror or a private instance don't need to host the documentation too
> - allows us to use a separate, more modern design for the dub docs (proposals are welcome!)
> - makes it easier for people contributing the docs (less code and dependencies to build)
> - allows us to remove the menu header at code.dlang.org and replace it with a nice, modern search bar
> - makes the deployment for the documentation easier (they are static
> HTML after all) and we have already setup continuous deployment for the documentation (via Netlify)
>
> As always, ideas and PRs to make DUB's documentation better are welcome.
>
> PS: Of course all old documentation links will redirect to dub.pm
Very ++ :-)

There should be a big section for well done dub.sdl / dub.json examples.

What about defining "comment" as an special keyword for the .json parser inside Dub
(just ignoring the content") to allow some kind comments inside .json
In the moment only dub.sdl may be more descriptive with #comments.
But many people prefer .json  where no comments are build in.

So allow to write "comment" : "This string will will be parsed away",
 may do the difference?

Best regards mt.

On Thursday, 19 July 2018 at 13:10:01 UTC, Martin Tschierschke wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 July 2018 at 09:39:04 UTC, Seb wrote:
>> [...]
> Very ++ :-)
>
> There should be a big section for well done dub.sdl / dub.json examples.
>
> What about defining "comment" as an special keyword for the .json parser inside Dub
> (just ignoring the content") to allow some kind comments inside .json
> In the moment only dub.sdl may be more descriptive with #comments.
> But many people prefer .json  where no comments are build in.
>
> So allow to write "comment" : "This string will will be parsed away",
>  may do the difference?
>
> Best regards mt.

Yes! Examples would be awesome. I have a little thing going [1] that maybe is usable as a start or something?

[1] https://github.com/aliak00/dub-subpackages

Cheers,
 - Ali

On Thursday, 19 July 2018 at 13:10:01 UTC, Martin Tschierschke wrote:
> There should be a big section for well done dub.sdl / dub.json examples.

Yes, there should be!
As always it just requires someone to step up, collect and add these examples.
FWIW the dub and vibe.d repositories both contain a great selection of dub.sdl examples.

> What about defining "comment" as an special keyword for the .json parser inside Dub
> (just ignoring the content") to allow some kind comments inside .json
> In the moment only dub.sdl may be more descriptive with #comments.

It's // or /* ... */ in dub.sdl ;-)

> But many people prefer .json  where no comments are build in.
>
> So allow to write "comment" : "This string will will be parsed away",
>  may do the difference?

As you mentioned SDL already supports comments. JSON support was actually only added because too many people complained about SDL not being properly supported.
Modifying the JSON parser is a bad idea as it will make integration with other tools harder.
Actually the JSON parser already accepts dub.json files with a trailing comma which isn't valid JSON and has thus already resulted in a bit of pain for tool authors as they can't use an off-the-shelf JSON parser anymore.
Currently, dub.json doesn't complain about unused fields (see https://run.dlang.io/is/2bbrN8), so you can already do the "comment" hack and if/once we actually check for valid field names, 'comment' could then be ignored.

On Thursday, July 19, 2018 13:51:25 Seb via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> As you mentioned SDL already supports comments. JSON support was actually only added because too many people complained about SDL not being properly supported.

Actually, originally, dub only supported json. sdl came later. However, there was a lot of push back when Sonke made sdl the default, so json not only didn't get phased out, but it became the default again.

- Jonathan M Davis