On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Boylan, James <[email protected]>wrote:
> I would point out that things are looking good with my attempt to convert > the docs over to rst and using Sphinx to generate the various formats. I > even think I'mm be able to generate man pages that addresses David's > concern about one massive page. Instead breaking it out into smaller ones > in the same setup. I won't be able to dig into it again until monday > morning. Something like that could make it easy to have this information in multiple > places and only update it once. > That's all excellent news, very cool :-) I've also thought a bit more about the separate repo question. I am now again of the view that this is not a problem, but indeed desirable. The only thing we need to make sure is that it follows the same maintenance policies (regarding versions) that rsyslog does. And that's not very hard. Indeed, the whole doc version issue is not so much a real issue IMHO. In fact, we just have two of them a) the old legacy stuff used in v5 b) the new stuff used in v6+ That's the main source of confusion. Otherwise, rsyslog always keeps backward-compatibility very high on the priority list. So actually all we need is "this parameter/module" is available since ... and you are all set. Back to the repo question: I think a separate repo is of big advantage, as access to it, especially commit access, follows quite different paradigms than the main code repository. So I am back to the "let's do a separate one" PoV - maybe better earlier than later (so that other folks can see what's going on). David, all: anything I overlooked? Thanks, Rainer _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE THAT.
