Oh right, there are some superficial changes to make as well, like ensuring there's a "trunk/" dir that contains everything and that the sources are all within trunk/content".
----- Original Message ----- > From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> > To: "docs@httpd.apache.org" <docs@httpd.apache.org> > Cc: > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 12:46 PM > Subject: Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Daniel Gruno <rum...@cord.dk> >> To: docs@httpd.apache.org >> Cc: >> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:36 AM >> Subject: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS >> >> Hi all, >> >> Joe Schaefer has proposed that we move our documentation to the Apache >> CMS(?) system (or at least try it out with a copy of trunk). From what I >> have gathered with my discussion with Joe, this move would allow for >> certain different ways of managing our documentation: >> >> 1) We can continue to commit XML files to SVN as we do now, but the >> rebuilding could be managed by the CMS system, so we wouldn't have to >> rebuild everything ourselves and then commit a heap of files for every >> small edit we do. I am not aware of what would happen if someone commits >> invalid XML though, but Joe should be on this mailing list, so if you >> could, please do tell how that would be handled. > > The CMS relies on the build system to report errors thru its exit status. > So if invalid XML is properly reported by the existing build system, the > build will fail and the follow-on buildbot staging commit won't happen. > The bug will need to be corrected before any further changes can be published. > >> 2) We can update/edit the XML files through an online XML editor >> (presumably through cms.a.o?), and the resulting changes in the XHTML >> will be automatically rebuilt by the server. This could ease up >> situations where you have to make a minor modification, but don't have >> all your SVN tools and repos at hand. >> >> This would, no doubt, be a big change in the way we work, and it would >> also require that we convert our existing documents to utf-8 format, but >> I do see some clear advantages in this proposal, thus I'm sending it to >> this list. >> >> Any thoughts, ideas, comments? > > I've looked over the docs trees to see what needs to happen before this > could actually work in practice. Besides migrating the sources to utf-8, > there are a few other items that will need to be dealt with: > > 1) the build system will need to take a run-time argument to change the > location of the build results to an arbitrary directory. IOW the build > artifacts will go to a different (configurable) directory than the sources. > The CMS will commit the build results back to svn, and the publication process > is based on things being in svn, so you will be able to checkout/tag/whatever > the live tree for release purposes. > > 2) the source documents themselves will need to be renamed from foo.xml.$lang > to > foo.$lang.xml and the build will need to preserve this rename- it is important > to the CMS that the .xml/.html extension is in the final position. > > 3) the CMS will need some tweaking to get the redirect code to DTRT for > the docs trees. > > Otherwise that should cover the required changes. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: docs-h...@httpd.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: docs-h...@httpd.apache.org
