On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 19:03 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote: > On 07/09/2011 04:13 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote: > >> It is my impression that we could and should 'adapt' the documentation > >> by removing the upstream provider logos and other marks (as applicable) > >> and mark the documentation as CentOS documentation. Obviously, > >> including references to the original document. This would give the > >> CentOS project the ability to edit out the aspects that are specific to > >> the upstream product, such as the contract number during install. > > > > ok, submit a patch / script to do that :-) > > > > depending on how much of it can be automated, that would be idea - > otherwise we can import the stuff into a git repo and use that as a base > to work from. > > - KB
That sounded like a vote for maintaining CentOS versions of the docs... Would it be too much work to import it into the wiki system (since it already has a revision control system) and export a set of pages to e-pub or other formats? I assume we would have to maintain footers that include pointers to the original content on each page. This could create more traffic on the wiki. Is bandwidth or machine time a concern? _______________________________________________ CentOS-docs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
