Maybe we have a separate doco build that pushes the pages onto the castle web site.
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Colin Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Something which needs sorting before this discussion becomes meanful: > how do we get this documentation online? I assume we all feel it > should be part of the main Castle site? How can we make changes when > we need to? > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I was thinking the same thing because I'd probably be doing the same > thing. > > > > I think docs committed to SVN is the only feasible way. You also get > branch, > > merge and patch support for free with subversion. > > > > On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Markus Zywitza < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> How would that play with offline editing. I'm writing much of my docs in > >> public transport far away from any internet access... > >> > >> -Markus > >> > >> 2008/10/31 petemounce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> > >>> There's actually a Drupal module for export-book-to-docbook, I believe > >>> (I've read about it, not used it). If you have a look at > >>> http://dev.dejardin.org/documentation at the Spark docs, that's an > >>> example of the Spark documentation online in its Drupal instance. > >>> Drupal has quite a configurable workflow so changes could be moderated > >>> online, and rolled back if required. If the export to docbook works, > >>> it seems like we would achieve both the "easy to contribute" goal and > >>> the "easy to publish to variety of formats" goal? It would also (I > >>> guess again in theory) mitigate the need for XML editing. We would > >>> also be able to source-control the exports if we wanted to, of course. > >>> > >>> Having just typed that, it does sound a bit too good to be true. > >>> Would people like me to throw together a Drupal instance for this over > >>> the weekend and make it available to try out? > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Pete > >>> > >>> > >>> On Oct 31, 1:59 pm, Bill Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > I guess I wasn't clear at all about what I would rather: I'd very > much > >>> > want to contribute patches to something stored in the repo and have > the > >>> > online stuff generated than have to deal with making changes directly > >>> > online. One of the problems with doing the documentation online is > that > >>> > we would lose the ability to reject changes and instead would need to > >>> > undo them after the fact. > >>> > > >>> > Richard Fleming wrote: > >>> > > A quick google search (online docbook editor) shows that there > looks > >>> > > to be projects around that combine "wiki style" websites with > docbook > >>> > > generators, which may provide an easy way to maintain docbook > stored > >>> > > documentation. I know there are some decent offline tools for > >>> > > docbook > >>> > > also, I've used lyx which is a WYSIWYG editor for structured > editing, > >>> > > although editing the raw files might be clean as well. > >>> > > >>> > > Keep in mind I haven't used any of these before, so I don't have > >>> > > anything valuable to say about the projects found :). > >>> > > >>> > > Thanks, > >>> > > Rick Fleming > >>> > > >>> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Bill Barry < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > >> I am not very familiar with docbook docs (other than reading > them), > >>> > >> but > >>> > >> I really do like the output. Would it be written in the repo and > the > >>> > >> sites generated or would it be some sort of collaborative online > >>> > >> thing? > >>> > > >>> > >> Jonathon Rossi wrote: > >>> > > >>> > >>> While everyone is on the topic of change, do we want to move to > the > >>> > >>> docbook documentation that Symon Rottem set up a while back? It > >>> > >>> should > >>> > >>> make it easier to write documentation. > >>> > > >>> > >>> Do we really need multiple copies of the documentation hosted > like > >>> > >>> we > >>> > >>> have now? Because documentation tends to lag behind and is always > >>> > >>> being updated after a release it might be better to have one copy > >>> > >>> like > >>> > >>> jQuery has. > >>> > > >>> > >>> MonoRail example of the docbook format: > >>> > >>>http://www.symbiotic-development.com/monorail/html/index.html > >>> > > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Jonathon Rossi > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Jonathon Rossi > > > > > > > > > > > -- Jonathon Rossi --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
