...and the source code, though your mileage may vary. The raw source code is a hidden child of the scm-migration project page. It won't display correctly there, but if you edit the page, the asciidoc source is intact.
The html doc is a child of the "How to transition" page in the tools community, so it shows up in the sidebar there, and I also linked it in the list at the bottom of that page. I needed to do some manual massaging of the html output by asciidoc to get it to display somewhat gracefully in opensolaris. I didn't spend any more time trying to figure out how to defeat e-mail mangling in url's. So if you want to edit this (like to fill in a missing example or something), it might be easiest to do it in the html. :( Unless somebody wants to take some ownership of it? --Mark On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Mark J. Nelson wrote: > Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:34:43 -0600 > From: Mark J. Nelson <Mark.J.Nelson at Sun.COM> > To: Richard Lowe <richlowe at richlowe.net> > Cc: scm-migration-dev at opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [scm-migration-dev] Workflow semi-docs > > > I whacked at this a bit. > > Attached to this note are my version and diffs from Rich's version. > > And I also put my version at > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~mjnelson/.test.html > > --Mark > > > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Richard Lowe wrote: > >> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:09:43 -0400 >> From: Richard Lowe <richlowe at richlowe.net> >> To: scm-migration-dev at opensolaris.org >> Subject: [scm-migration-dev] Workflow semi-docs >> >> >> So, I hacked together a vague attempt at workflow-type documentation. >> >> I then hacked that documentation into asciidoc format (as found >> somewhere in the doc community). >> >> The output of same is at >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~richlowe/.test.html >> >> I've done nothing to the output, it's precisely as the defaults of >> asciidoc. >> >> The input is attached. >> >> Do we want to muddle this in with the rest of our documentation? >> If we do, does someone want to volunteer? >> >> As forewarning, it's not quite complete, and it shouldn't be taken as >> *documentation* right now, it's been glanced at by two people, but has >> had no real check of its advice. >> >> -- Rich >> >> >
