Hm, well I don't know what resources the Apache projects are dealing
with but I have not implemented Forrest at my work (other than for me to
play with) because I am the only person who understands anything about
XML. The biggest hurdles I see at my office are site.xml and the actual
documents with deployment also being a secondary issue. They are
hurdles because I can't be the only person who knows how to use it. It
isn't efficient if I'm the only one who can add docs and do anything at
all with it. Now that I have spent time with Forrest I know there are
some tools to help me with those issues. So *for my use case situation*
things that would make Forrest more viable:
- A simple, intuitive way for non-XMLers to add things to site.xml
- Emphasis and stupid clear instructions on document plugins (DocBook,
OpenOffice)
- Emphasis and stupid clear instructions on Forrestbot
By stupid clear, I mean so that someone with little XML and Forrest
experience can understand at least half of what you are saying and not
be intimidated to at least try.
Anyway, those are my knee-jerk thoughts in response. Hope I'm not
off-base of your point.
- Addi
David Crossley wrote:
(Sorry, this got too long but i reckon it is important.)
As you know, various people are using Forrest.
For some see: http://forrest.apache.org/live-sites.html
We can only presume they are well aware of what they are doing.
They have chosen to use the pre-1.0 software. They will all
have someone who knows how to run forrest, and knows to ask
questions on the forrest user mailing list if they get stuck
with upgrading, usage, installation, etc.
However, i wonder if we are doing such a good job with
making software that is usable now, even though it is a
long way off being a 1.0 release, that some people/projects
are getting themselves into hot water by depending on it
before it is actually ready.
We need to emphasise in our documentation, and in the
release announcements, that this is pre-1.0 software.
Yet still we can show that it is certainly usable for
those who are prepared to move with it. We use it.
I am particularly concerned about certain meta-projects at
the Apache Software Foundation. For example, xml.apache.org
and incubator.apache.org
These places decided to use Forrest long ago, IIRC at 0.5
However, they do not now have people who understand how to
use it, how to upgrade it, how to get around its quirks.
Especially at Apache Incubator. The people are there
to introduce new projects, new people, and to write and
publish documentation.
I don't quite know the history of Incubator, but i presume
that people got excited about eating Apache dogfood and
decided to go with Forrest. Perhaps the original proponents
moved on. Now it seems that people are not happy with it,
finding it cumbersome. I have heard some people say
that they can't actually point to any particular thing.
Mostly it is just silence and lack of use.
Recently it was proposed that Forrest might be a solution
at another part of ASF Infrastructure. That met with a lot
of criticism, yet there was not a lot of concrete feedback.
Over-dedicated volunteers like me and Ross, tend to go and
help such places. However that is not sustainable.
I don't know what to do about this. At the least
i thought to send this mail because the Forrest PMC
should be aware that there is something happening that
could be damaging for our project. People are gumbling.
We need to look at ways of making it more user-friendly.
It is obviously not easy or the incubator.apache.org
issues would not arise.
Perhaps the problem is documentation for how to install
and use forrest. These projects have a smattering
of their own documentation for how to use it, but often
it is poor and way out-of-date. Perhaps we need to
write a document focussed on use of Forrest at Apache.
Perhaps we need to actively go out and ask those
Apache projects that use Forrest, what they see as
the hindrance. It seems to me that people must be
grumbling but not actually saying that they have issues
or perhaps not being able to define the issues.
-David
