> I mentioned the use of Forrest, and to answer Jonathan's question I'd > like to see Forrest take the burden of generating our entire site see > lenya.apache.org for an example. While this would replace the wiki in > many of the ways we currently use it I think that the wiki still has a > benefit as Rajith points out for proposals/discussions. > > I don't think we should put any effort in to writing our own ant (or > other) based system for converting the docbook in to html or other > format. Even if it is only a 3 line ant file. We should decide what > our target for this docbook documentation is and generate it for them. > > I would say that this would mean generation for: > - Web (html) > - Developers (local html and/or pdf) > - Release (local html, pdf?) > > Our focus should of course be to actually _create_ the content first > and think about the presentation once we have something we can > actually show. I don't mind taking the few minutes to look in to > Forrest and generate an example of what things might look like. Would > be good to have some content though to do that with :)
+1 to the whole idea, but particularly Martin's comment that we need to *create* documentation first. Can we agree on using docbook as a format, and forrest for site generation? I would like to see what a forrest generated site would look like... having something to review will also expose us to how little documentation we really have, I think. IMHO one of the key requirements for making this project a success will be the quality of our documentation. Right now I see the lack of documentation as a clear barrier to adoption of Qpid. Your thoughts? Rob -- > Martin Ritchie >
