Hi Taher I think a documentation team would be a great idea. There are people that have indicated that they'd like to help out with documentation tasks on the user list so that is where I'd recruit some people from. As long as people know what they need to do to create the patches then it will become a funnel process of getting it committed.
We need a plan to consolidate the information sitting in the wiki and getting it put into the documentation framework (and this work will then significantly clear up the wiki!). My availability is pretty bad this week so hope to pick this up again or start the recruitment campaign next week :-) Thanks Sharan On 2018/01/28 10:12:41, Taher Alkhateeb <[email protected]> wrote: > Like Michael I think it is also a minor point. The reason I chose this > structure is because it is the default one for asciidoctor and is flexible > for the future, so Paul also makes a good point. Any structure is fine by > me, the real important work is getting the documentation right which is > very exciting to me. > > I will create a patch soon for a base level structure and publishing > options for both HTML and PDF. It would be fantastic if we can unify _all_ > of our documentation here including stuff currently in the wiki. This way > any changes to code are reflected (probably in the same commit) with the > relevant documentation. > > I think we should start to consider maybe forming a team willing to help. > This is a big, but extremely important thing to have. If we do this right > then I think adoption rates would increase and our community would get > larger. > > On Jan 28, 2018 12:19 PM, "Michael Brohl" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > this is only a minor point for me, it just saves one folder/structure level. > > If we want to stay open for other documentation frameworks in the future, > it might be better to keep the proposed structure. > > Best regards, > > Michael > > > Am 28.01.18 um 02:54 schrieb Paul Foxworthy: > > On 26 January 2018 at 19:53, Michael Brohl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > with a small modification: I don't think we'll need a two-folder structure > >> /docs/asciidoc, only /docs should be sufficient, no? > >> > >> Hi Michael, > > > > We have streamlined the build system in other places by having folders for > > the source language: groovyScripts, minilang, src/main/java . > > > > It means Groovy and other build tools can have default rules for what to do > > with the contents of a language folder, and allows for the possibility of > > other languages in future if necessary. > > > > The extra layer is only a minor nuisance. I think I'd prefer to keep it. > > What do you see as the disadvantages? > > > > Cheers > > > > Paul Foxworthy > > > > >
