I don't understand - The need for documentation under source control is
important, and we need to find a solution that ensure that is possible.
I think that a documentation system should be a combination of
- reasonably easy to use
- versionable
- able to be used offline
- extractable into an open and transformable format for reuse
Wikis that I've used fail on #2, #3 and #4.
I'm also curious about how in-code documentation can be integrated, via
something like Doxygen or -ish.
I realize the clear majority is for Confluence, but these factors should
be considered.
[+1] Other (as I think that #2, #3 and #4 aren't realizable w/ current
proposals... I'd be happy to be wrong...)
geir
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Anyone with an interest in working with the documentation,
either directly or for some sort of postprocessing, please
vote here. Unless there are problems, this vote will
close in one week, at 14h00 UTC on 27 January 2006. At
that point, a two-thirds majority will be a clear indicator
of which way to go; any narrower majority will mean
opinions are still too divided.
Working documentation for Apache Geronimo should be kept in
[ ] Confluence
[ ] MoinMoin wiki
[ ] Other (explain)
This does not affect the need for 'solid' or released
documentation to be under source control. This vote is
only to decide a single collaborative environment for
its development.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQ9D1bprNPMCpn3XdAQIguAP/W4N8a5bp0F0kqhLnInPkBb1Hgacg7r0D
eBHx/NiyQzZ/qjsStvCh/Ud3dDSzVbTCno5mgoaM6lmqEgOJ/EqMVzD/lYmtt/0y
Jl2dI4DrPRe7Y5UvWNM76dSaGob3xuGyhYLm2mVJYxDnow9L6MO6btrWOCsb8Ww7
48uwYXnlh1c=
=1Dmb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
