Exactly what I thought. Symon.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > > -- Symon Rottem http://blog.symbiotic-development.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
