Hi Jason, Jason Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If Forrest is not the site-creation tool that we want to use, that is > fine. But to suggest that someone shouldn't work on updating the site > because 3.0 isn't ready seems strange. Perhaps i'm missing something. > Would someone be willing to clarify? Sure. What I meant is we shouldn't make any hard dependencies between code releases and porting to Forrest until all the infrastructure- related work is done and the migration path is clear and worked out. This way, if the person with the expertise is suddenly unable to finish the work, we won't be stuck with something half-done and unable to move forward with the code base. I propose we do it like this: do the initial port on the side and then, when it is clear that the new setup can support all our use cases go ahead with migrating the rest of documentation. While this effort is underway, we can continue making new releases with the old documentation system. If the initial effort fails for some reason, then we have the old way of doing things to fall back on. I've been updating Xerces-C++ documentation not long ago and have a good idea of the tricky parts. I can create a list of files that would be good to port to Forrest as an initial port. Boris -- Boris Kolpackov Code Synthesis Tools CC http://www.codesynthesis.com Open-Source, Cross-Platform C++ XML Data Binding --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
