I've personally never written RST, but if its similar to markdown, maintaining docs should be pretty simple.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015, 8:00 PM Pete Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi there, > > I'm working on a project[0] to build a documentation website using > buildbot. We have plenty of publican books for me to play with, but I'd > also like to enable other formats. ReStructuredText[1] seems like a > good first choice, as it's easy to learn and use (just squint and > pretend it's markdown, if you aren't familiar), and there are processors > for it at hand. > > Anerist is centered around consuming git repositories. Ultimately, I'd > like the site to offer the both user and contributor facing > documentation. I also need a repo full of RST content to bang out > implementation details. infra-docs.git seems ideally positioned to help > out here, and any time invested would carry forward to the end product. > Each article would need some kind of header[2] to work at scale, though. > > So, what does the infrastructure team think about writing in RST? If > I'm willing to convert everything over, are you willing to sustain it? > > --Pete > > > [0] slowly, anyway... https://github.com/immanetize/anerist > [1] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html > [1b] more digestable: http://www.getnikola.com/quickstart.html > [2] Probably something like > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/2015-March/016101.html, > discussion encouraged. > > > _______________________________________________ > infrastructure mailing list > [email protected] > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
