On 11/09/2007, Jonathan Robie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Godfrey wrote: > > +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? > > > > Personally, I'm not sure that I have enough of an overview of what we > want to accomplish. What kinds of documentation will we have, and how > many pages total? Do we expect to be maintaining it for several versions > at a time?
Yes 0_8/0_9 (M2) and 0_10+ (M3) > > 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. > > > I imagine Forrest is quite flexible in the formats it can generate. > Personally, I'd like to start with a list of what documentation we want > to have, our plan for maintaining multiple versions of the documentation > as we go, the formats we want to produce, etc. and then pick the tool. > > I'm new here, perhaps you already have that planned out. But to me, it's > usually a bad idea to pick the tool first and then figure out what you > want to do with it. If we don't know yet, I'd keep it simple, using > DocBook and simple ant scripts to get some documentation done to start > with, and keeping our options open for the big picture to come. >From what I see forrest site generation is as easy as $forrest site Like maven you put your docs in a standard location and it picks it all up. > > 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. > > > > I agree. +1 This has to be our first focus. We can see what the generating tools give us be it forrest, ant scripts or a.n. other tool at a later date. > Jonathan > -- Martin Ritchie
