As I have mentioned in the past, we should just publish what we have right now. If we wait until it's perfect this will never be done. I am not worried about dangling links. We could resolve them in time.
What we have now can't be any worse than the current wiki docs. **So please lets publish what we have now.** Once it's more visible more people will participate. Regards, Rajith On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Jonathan Robie <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/14/2010 07:11 AM, Martin Ritchie wrote: >> >> On 16 March 2010 23:19, Rajith Attapattu<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Robbie Gemmell >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> There were suggestions some months ago around having the website become >>>> a >>>> combination of static main pages and generated user doc pages/pdf coming >>>> from the DocBook source, with the wiki hanging off to the side for >>>> development work. Is that still the end game? >>>> >>> >>> Yes it is. After the prototype I did last time, a lot of folks said >>> they would like "blue" instead of "brown" :) >>> I will try to do it this weekend and post another prototype. Hopefully >>> people will like it ! >>> >> >> I think we are in danger of losing some work here. If we don't make >> the change soon then we will have docs in svn that users can't easily >> access and docs on the wiki that potentially will get lost when the >> migration occurs. >> >> It would be great if we could have a time line for replacing the wiki >> page with an exported docbook site. >> > > I agree. > > Perhaps we need to organize a team of editors to work on this? I volunteer > to be one of them. Perhaps we should figure out who is on the team and > create our plan and our schedule together. > > A straight export didn't work for a variety of reasons, what we have checked > in is a straight export followed by manual tweaking to impose structure, get > rid of references to things that are completely out of date, etc. There are > some problems with dangling links and such, and a lot more problems because > the original Wiki pages were not written to be part of one document, reflect > various versions of things, etc. It was a significant amount of work. > > As you say, work is currently being lost. I'm not reflecting new changes to > the Wiki into these docs, someone will have to do this. Particularly for the > Java broker. So far, I don't know who is responsible for the Java broker > docs. > > On the C++ broker side, we have lots of documents we want to contribute > upstream, and I think they are generally in better shape than the existing > Wiki information. And we're doing the new API docs upstream to start with. > >> We can work on tweeking the colours once it is live. >> >> Are we in a place where we can just export and see what it is like? >> > > I think what is in svn now tells you what it is like. There's a build system > there, so you can see what it's like. It's pretty rough, it needs editing. > > I am doing tutorial for the new API, and doing that upstream. I will also > contribute a lot of Red Hat docs for the C++ broker after stripping Red > Hat-specific stuff. Someone else needs to do the heavy lifting for the Java > broker and WCF docs. I hope we'll all be making changes to the docs as we > change the code. > > Can I sign you up as one of the editors? > > Jonathan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > > -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
