Seems like this might be something to request from IBM - not likely to
happen, but would be worthwhile to at least ask for the source for the docs.
I'm sure we could convert the pdf's to something with some work, but the end
result will be quite ugly unless a ton of by-hand work is done.
-- Nathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 2:06 PM
> To: John Berninger
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] @sys as list patch in CVS
>
>
> >>>>> "John" == John Berninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001, Ted McCabe wrote:
> >> At 1:37 PM -0400 6/5/01, Sam Hartman wrote: >...<snip> >I
> >> suggest that for future patches, >you require an entry in that
> >> file for new functionality.
> >>
> >> Makes good sense. It does seem to raise another issue, namely
> >> documenting patch submission: preferred method thereof,
> >> requirements, tools, etc.
>
> John> This may or may not be related to other documentation
> John> issues, but might I suggest a decision be made regarding
> John> what form(s) of documentation will be provided to end users
> John> / administrators / others in need of documentation, then
> John> decide what would be easiest to produce that / those forms?
>
> We find ourselves in an annoying position. We do not have source
> other than the pdfs for the manuals. This makes your suggestion
> somewhat impractical. Certainly if you are volunteering to convert
> the existing manuals from pdf to docbook, this sounds like a great
> idea.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
>
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
