Dear Alejandro,
Unfortunately not having docbook on my minimal server to generate the latest
User Manual, I opted for the HTML version in the site. A month ago it was
version 1.4.0, now it is renamed to 1.4.1. I believe it must be 4 yrs old.
It is labeled as "more current" than the development. Not finding anything
else, I figured out that it was the latest.
It caused me a lot of grief. I tried to configure my box using the wrong
manual and had to resort to the source code many times over. Thanks for
pointing out the more current XML sources, it would be even nicer to get the
CVS manual out to the web (CVS, Stable, Development).
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alejandro Guerrieri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Kannel Devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Patch formalization
Nikos,
The manual on the site is rendered to HTML, PDF and other formats from
a DocBook XML file, userguide.xml available on Kannel's source code.
Its content has been updated a lot of times.
Regards,
Alejandro Guerrieri
El 21/11/2008, a las 11:40 p.m., Nikos Balkanas escribiΓ³:
Hi Alej
I knew of only the HTML manual in the site, some ~8y old. Is there a more
recent version in XML?
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alejandro Guerrieri"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Stipe Tolj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: Patch formalization
Well, for the last few years, though maybe not a strict policy,
patches that modified the functionality were always suggested to have
a patch to the documentation XML as well.
I remember many patches that were put on hold until a proper
documentation patch was in place as well.
I also agree with that: Patches that modify user-interface, implement
new functionality or modify what the manual says in any way should
always include a patch for documentation.
The quality of the documentation being added is as important as the
patch itself IMO. Otherwise, we'd end having to check the source code
to figure out functionality, completely missing the point of having
documentation on the first place.
Regards,
Alejandro Guerrieri
El 21/11/2008, a las 10:08 p.m., Nikos Balkanas escribiΓ³:
Hi Stipe,
Very nicely done, especially the mantis system. But you are missing a
very important point. What I was driving at was that any submitted
patch should include a patch also of the manual. This is already in
HTML form and needs to be in the CVS, if not already.
It might take some time to setup mantis and the HTML, time that the
manual shouldn't have to wait. The manual can be implemented as soon as
a decision is reached.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stipe Tolj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: Patch formalization
Nikos Balkanas schrieb:
Hi,
I see a lot of patches going around on this group. I would like to
propose not to accept patches unless the relevant points are updated
in
the documentation. Furthermore I suggest that this should be a
distributed effort by each submitter. Too much I think has fallen on
the
shoulders of Alex trying to verify the code, to be able to maintain
the
documentation as well. Of course that would mean that documentation
needs to get in the CVS if not already there. And definitely this
applies only to new features/improvements, not to bug fixes.
This should facilitate also traffic in the group, inasmuch new users,
like me, ask, over and over again, a lot of questions that are either
outdated or nonexistent in the manual. A searchable mail list would
be
an improvement but could not substitute for a current manual.
Any comments?
agreed.
We have those 'formal guidelines' for [PATCH] submission, but I guess
it
wouldn't hurt to setup a simple .html page on the web site to make
them more
universal available.
Main policy items, IMO:
1. where to submit: devel@ list.
2. subject prefixing: [PATCH] my foobar patch that does
3. form of the patch: diff -u against CVS HEAD at 'gateway' root
4. form of source code: gateway/doc/CodingStyle should be obeyed
5. explanation of the patch: the more the reviewers "understand" the
easier to
review, and then vote. This enhances the patch post to commit cycle
6. all 'open' patches should be maintained in mantis (bug tracking
system) too,
at least as reference (i.e. via the mailing list Msg-Id) and the patch
itself
attachment. This helps us to maintain a single point of view to see
what pathces
are still pending.
7. any patch that introduces a behavior change needs votes, hence
consensus of
the group.
8. obvious bug fixes can be committed directly, but should be
noticeable to the
devel@ list with the same subject prefixing.
any more? or comments on these?
Stipe
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kölner Landstrasse 419
40589 D�sseldorf, NRW, Germany
tolj.org system architecture Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
http://www.tolj.org/ http://www.kannel.org/
mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
