Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Rafael Benevides]

Thanks, once more, John,

+1 to consider this a binding vote.

Btw, Do you need any help with CMS?

Em 8/17/14, 18:29, John D. Ament escreveu:

Also, I created a JIRA ticket to cover the donation.  All commits related
to the donation should include DELTASPIKE-690 in the commit message, for
tracking purposes, ideally.  The JIRA can be found at [1].

- John

[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-690


On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:26 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:


All,

Just wondering, can we consider this a binding vote?  Just want to make
sure I have the right links in place.

John


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:04 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:


+1 as well.  I can push this folder in to master after 1.0.2 is release,
so as to not mess up Gerhard.


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jason Porter 
wrote:


+1 from me. —
Sent from Mailbox

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Rafael Benevides 
wrote:


I ran the PoC and I do really thing that it works for DeltaSpike
(considering that there's no restriction on CMS).
Can I give a green sign to Michelle start the docs refactoring (as
planned) using Asciidoctor? I think that she and her team can work on
its own repository and them move it in one big shot once that we have
all requirements setup. Wdyt ?
Em 8/11/14, 8:17, John D. Ament escreveu:

@mark

That's what I based it on actually.


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Mark Struberg 

wrote:

You can look at batchee.

Romain configured offline doc (with markdown, but could also be

asciidoc)

and mvn scm-publish

LieGrue,
strub



On Sat, 9/8/14, John D. Ament  wrote:

   Subject: Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
   To: "deltaspike" 
   Date: Saturday, 9 August, 2014, 15:54

   Actually, from digging
   around their code, might have an easier solution, so
   long as everyone agrees.

   I have a small POC setup here:



https://github.com/johnament/deltaspike/commit/402becc0e450e551570107a1661d39e9eb6a43cb

   I setup a local VM w/ a SVN
   repo to test it out.  Basically, we can
   generate the asciidoc locally using mvn site,
   then run mvn site-deploy to
   move the
   rendered files to staging.  Once done, login to CMS and
   promote to
   prod.

   The only change would be to get infra to switch
   our script to use the shell
   option.  It
   does put the rendering process on whoever is writing the
   docs,
   but since it's using the java
   plugin and jruby, nothing should need to be
   downloaded separately to machines.


   On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:55
   PM, Rafael Benevides 
   wrote:

   > I
   remember that someone said that CMS already supports
   remote
   > repositories. Can't we start
   by having this documents moved soon while we
   > discuss about the asciidoc rendering ?
   >
   > Em 8/8/14, 10:53,
   Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
   >
   >  @john:
   >> the
   infra team is usually not the blocking part (if there is
   no
   >> significant
   >> technical issue and they don't get
   a new heavy part to maintain).
   >>
   >> regards,
   >>
   gerhard
   >>
   >>
   >>
   >> 2014-08-08
   15:37 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
   >>
   >>  I think we
   need to convince infra@ that these are all must needed
   >>> features.
   >>>   From looking at the
   code behind CMS, it would appear that it's the one
   >>> calling markdown based on the
   imports in our files.  Unless we want to do
   >>> something crazy like render
   asciidoc in markdown format, then hand that
   >>> over for rendering..
   >>>
   >>> Still
   would need to convince that pulling from git over the svn
   site is
   >>> ideal as well.
   >>>
   >>>
   John
   >>>
   >>>
   >>> On
   Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Rafael Benevides <

benevi...@redhat.com>

   >>> wrote:
   >>>
   >>>  Em
   8/8/14, 6:49, Pete Muir escreveu:
   >>>>
   >>>>   On 7 Aug 2014, at
   18:47, Rafael Benevides 
   >>>> wrote:
   >>>>
   >>>>>   Before we
   have a deal with Michelle's team about these content
   >>>>> changes,
   >>>>>
   >>>>>> I think we should
   close the two other definitions:
   >>>>>>
   >>>>>> - docs location: move
   to deltaspike sources, create a new repository,
   >>>>>> other?
   >>>>>>
   >>>>>>  +1 to move to
   sources
   >>>>>
   >>>>>  +1 to move to sources
   >>>>
   >>>>and
   >>>>>
   >>>>>> -docs format: markdown
   or asciidoc
   >>>>>>
   >>>>>>  +1 for asciidoc.
  

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[John D. Ament]

Also, I created a JIRA ticket to cover the donation.  All commits related
to the donation should include DELTASPIKE-690 in the commit message, for
tracking purposes, ideally.  The JIRA can be found at [1].

- John

[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-690


On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:26 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> All,
>
> Just wondering, can we consider this a binding vote?  Just want to make
> sure I have the right links in place.
>
> John
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:04 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 as well.  I can push this folder in to master after 1.0.2 is release,
>> so as to not mess up Gerhard.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jason Porter 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 from me. —
>>> Sent from Mailbox
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Rafael Benevides 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I ran the PoC and I do really thing that it works for DeltaSpike
>>> > (considering that there's no restriction on CMS).
>>> > Can I give a green sign to Michelle start the docs refactoring (as
>>> > planned) using Asciidoctor? I think that she and her team can work on
>>> > its own repository and them move it in one big shot once that we have
>>> > all requirements setup. Wdyt ?
>>> > Em 8/11/14, 8:17, John D. Ament escreveu:
>>> >> @mark
>>> >>
>>> >> That's what I based it on actually.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Mark Struberg 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> You can look at batchee.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Romain configured offline doc (with markdown, but could also be
>>> asciidoc)
>>> >>> and mvn scm-publish
>>> >>>
>>> >>> LieGrue,
>>> >>> strub
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> On Sat, 9/8/14, John D. Ament  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   Subject: Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
>>> >>>   To: "deltaspike" 
>>> >>>   Date: Saturday, 9 August, 2014, 15:54
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   Actually, from digging
>>> >>>   around their code, might have an easier solution, so
>>> >>>   long as everyone agrees.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   I have a small POC setup here:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> https://github.com/johnament/deltaspike/commit/402becc0e450e551570107a1661d39e9eb6a43cb
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   I setup a local VM w/ a SVN
>>> >>>   repo to test it out.  Basically, we can
>>> >>>   generate the asciidoc locally using mvn site,
>>> >>>   then run mvn site-deploy to
>>> >>>   move the
>>> >>>   rendered files to staging.  Once done, login to CMS and
>>> >>>   promote to
>>> >>>   prod.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   The only change would be to get infra to switch
>>> >>>   our script to use the shell
>>> >>>   option.  It
>>> >>>   does put the rendering process on whoever is writing the
>>> >>>   docs,
>>> >>>   but since it's using the java
>>> >>>   plugin and jruby, nothing should need to be
>>> >>>   downloaded separately to machines.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:55
>>> >>>   PM, Rafael Benevides 
>>> >>>   wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   > I
>>> >>>   remember that someone said that CMS already supports
>>> >>>   remote
>>> >>>   > repositories. Can't we start
>>> >>>   by having this documents moved soon while we
>>> >>>   > discuss about the asciidoc rendering ?
>>> >>>   >
>>> >>>   > Em 8/8/14, 10:53,
>>> >>>   Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
>>> >>>   >
>>> >>>   >  @john:
>>> >>>   >> the
>>> >>>   infra team is usually not the blocking part (if there is
>>> >>>   no
>>> >>>   >> significant
>>> >>>   >> technical issue and they don't ge

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[John D. Ament]

All,

Just wondering, can we consider this a binding vote?  Just want to make
sure I have the right links in place.

John


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:04 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> +1 as well.  I can push this folder in to master after 1.0.2 is release,
> so as to not mess up Gerhard.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jason Porter 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 from me. —
>> Sent from Mailbox
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Rafael Benevides 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I ran the PoC and I do really thing that it works for DeltaSpike
>> > (considering that there's no restriction on CMS).
>> > Can I give a green sign to Michelle start the docs refactoring (as
>> > planned) using Asciidoctor? I think that she and her team can work on
>> > its own repository and them move it in one big shot once that we have
>> > all requirements setup. Wdyt ?
>> > Em 8/11/14, 8:17, John D. Ament escreveu:
>> >> @mark
>> >>
>> >> That's what I based it on actually.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Mark Struberg 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> You can look at batchee.
>> >>>
>> >>> Romain configured offline doc (with markdown, but could also be
>> asciidoc)
>> >>> and mvn scm-publish
>> >>>
>> >>> LieGrue,
>> >>> strub
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 
>> >>> On Sat, 9/8/14, John D. Ament  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>   Subject: Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
>> >>>   To: "deltaspike" 
>> >>>   Date: Saturday, 9 August, 2014, 15:54
>> >>>
>> >>>   Actually, from digging
>> >>>   around their code, might have an easier solution, so
>> >>>   long as everyone agrees.
>> >>>
>> >>>   I have a small POC setup here:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> https://github.com/johnament/deltaspike/commit/402becc0e450e551570107a1661d39e9eb6a43cb
>> >>>
>> >>>   I setup a local VM w/ a SVN
>> >>>   repo to test it out.  Basically, we can
>> >>>   generate the asciidoc locally using mvn site,
>> >>>   then run mvn site-deploy to
>> >>>   move the
>> >>>   rendered files to staging.  Once done, login to CMS and
>> >>>   promote to
>> >>>   prod.
>> >>>
>> >>>   The only change would be to get infra to switch
>> >>>   our script to use the shell
>> >>>   option.  It
>> >>>   does put the rendering process on whoever is writing the
>> >>>   docs,
>> >>>   but since it's using the java
>> >>>   plugin and jruby, nothing should need to be
>> >>>   downloaded separately to machines.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>   On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:55
>> >>>   PM, Rafael Benevides 
>> >>>   wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>   > I
>> >>>   remember that someone said that CMS already supports
>> >>>   remote
>> >>>   > repositories. Can't we start
>> >>>   by having this documents moved soon while we
>> >>>   > discuss about the asciidoc rendering ?
>> >>>   >
>> >>>   > Em 8/8/14, 10:53,
>> >>>   Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
>> >>>   >
>> >>>   >  @john:
>> >>>   >> the
>> >>>   infra team is usually not the blocking part (if there is
>> >>>   no
>> >>>   >> significant
>> >>>   >> technical issue and they don't get
>> >>>   a new heavy part to maintain).
>> >>>   >>
>> >>>   >> regards,
>> >>>   >>
>> >>>   gerhard
>> >>>   >>
>> >>>   >>
>> >>>   >>
>> >>>   >> 2014-08-08
>> >>>   15:37 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
>> >>>   >>
>> >>>   >>  I think we
>> >>>   need to convince infra@ that these are all must needed
>> >>>   >>> features.
>> >>>   >>>   From looking at the
>> >>>   code behind CMS, it would appear that it's the one
>> >>

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[John D. Ament]

+1 as well.  I can push this folder in to master after 1.0.2 is release, so
as to not mess up Gerhard.


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jason Porter 
wrote:

> +1 from me. —
> Sent from Mailbox
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Rafael Benevides 
> wrote:
>
> > I ran the PoC and I do really thing that it works for DeltaSpike
> > (considering that there's no restriction on CMS).
> > Can I give a green sign to Michelle start the docs refactoring (as
> > planned) using Asciidoctor? I think that she and her team can work on
> > its own repository and them move it in one big shot once that we have
> > all requirements setup. Wdyt ?
> > Em 8/11/14, 8:17, John D. Ament escreveu:
> >> @mark
> >>
> >> That's what I based it on actually.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> You can look at batchee.
> >>>
> >>> Romain configured offline doc (with markdown, but could also be
> asciidoc)
> >>> and mvn scm-publish
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> On Sat, 9/8/14, John D. Ament  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>   Subject: Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
> >>>   To: "deltaspike" 
> >>>   Date: Saturday, 9 August, 2014, 15:54
> >>>
> >>>   Actually, from digging
> >>>   around their code, might have an easier solution, so
> >>>   long as everyone agrees.
> >>>
> >>>   I have a small POC setup here:
> >>>
> >>>
> https://github.com/johnament/deltaspike/commit/402becc0e450e551570107a1661d39e9eb6a43cb
> >>>
> >>>   I setup a local VM w/ a SVN
> >>>   repo to test it out.  Basically, we can
> >>>   generate the asciidoc locally using mvn site,
> >>>   then run mvn site-deploy to
> >>>   move the
> >>>   rendered files to staging.  Once done, login to CMS and
> >>>   promote to
> >>>   prod.
> >>>
> >>>   The only change would be to get infra to switch
> >>>   our script to use the shell
> >>>   option.  It
> >>>   does put the rendering process on whoever is writing the
> >>>   docs,
> >>>   but since it's using the java
> >>>   plugin and jruby, nothing should need to be
> >>>   downloaded separately to machines.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:55
> >>>   PM, Rafael Benevides 
> >>>   wrote:
> >>>
> >>>   > I
> >>>   remember that someone said that CMS already supports
> >>>   remote
> >>>   > repositories. Can't we start
> >>>   by having this documents moved soon while we
> >>>   > discuss about the asciidoc rendering ?
> >>>   >
> >>>   > Em 8/8/14, 10:53,
> >>>   Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
> >>>   >
> >>>   >  @john:
> >>>   >> the
> >>>   infra team is usually not the blocking part (if there is
> >>>   no
> >>>   >> significant
> >>>   >> technical issue and they don't get
> >>>   a new heavy part to maintain).
> >>>   >>
> >>>   >> regards,
> >>>   >>
> >>>   gerhard
> >>>   >>
> >>>   >>
> >>>   >>
> >>>   >> 2014-08-08
> >>>   15:37 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
> >>>   >>
> >>>   >>  I think we
> >>>   need to convince infra@ that these are all must needed
> >>>   >>> features.
> >>>   >>>   From looking at the
> >>>   code behind CMS, it would appear that it's the one
> >>>   >>> calling markdown based on the
> >>>   imports in our files.  Unless we want to do
> >>>   >>> something crazy like render
> >>>   asciidoc in markdown format, then hand that
> >>>   >>> over for rendering..
> >>>   >>>
> >>>   >>> Still
> >>>   would need to convince that pulling from git over the svn
> >>>   site is
> >>>   >>> ideal as well.
> >>>   >>>
> >>>   >>>
> >>>   John
>

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Jason Porter]

+1 from me. —
Sent from Mailbox

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Rafael Benevides 
wrote:

> I ran the PoC and I do really thing that it works for DeltaSpike 
> (considering that there's no restriction on CMS).
> Can I give a green sign to Michelle start the docs refactoring (as 
> planned) using Asciidoctor? I think that she and her team can work on 
> its own repository and them move it in one big shot once that we have 
> all requirements setup. Wdyt ?
> Em 8/11/14, 8:17, John D. Ament escreveu:
>> @mark
>>
>> That's what I based it on actually.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Mark Struberg  wrote:
>>
>>> You can look at batchee.
>>>
>>> Romain configured offline doc (with markdown, but could also be asciidoc)
>>> and mvn scm-publish
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> On Sat, 9/8/14, John D. Ament  wrote:
>>>
>>>   Subject: Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
>>>   To: "deltaspike" 
>>>   Date: Saturday, 9 August, 2014, 15:54
>>>
>>>   Actually, from digging
>>>   around their code, might have an easier solution, so
>>>   long as everyone agrees.
>>>
>>>   I have a small POC setup here:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/johnament/deltaspike/commit/402becc0e450e551570107a1661d39e9eb6a43cb
>>>
>>>   I setup a local VM w/ a SVN
>>>   repo to test it out.  Basically, we can
>>>   generate the asciidoc locally using mvn site,
>>>   then run mvn site-deploy to
>>>   move the
>>>   rendered files to staging.  Once done, login to CMS and
>>>   promote to
>>>   prod.
>>>
>>>   The only change would be to get infra to switch
>>>   our script to use the shell
>>>   option.  It
>>>   does put the rendering process on whoever is writing the
>>>   docs,
>>>   but since it's using the java
>>>   plugin and jruby, nothing should need to be
>>>   downloaded separately to machines.
>>>
>>>
>>>   On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:55
>>>   PM, Rafael Benevides 
>>>   wrote:
>>>
>>>   > I
>>>   remember that someone said that CMS already supports
>>>   remote
>>>   > repositories. Can't we start
>>>   by having this documents moved soon while we
>>>   > discuss about the asciidoc rendering ?
>>>   >
>>>   > Em 8/8/14, 10:53,
>>>   Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
>>>   >
>>>   >  @john:
>>>   >> the
>>>   infra team is usually not the blocking part (if there is
>>>   no
>>>   >> significant
>>>   >> technical issue and they don't get
>>>   a new heavy part to maintain).
>>>   >>
>>>   >> regards,
>>>   >>
>>>   gerhard
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >>
>>>   >> 2014-08-08
>>>   15:37 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
>>>   >>
>>>   >>  I think we
>>>   need to convince infra@ that these are all must needed
>>>   >>> features.
>>>   >>>   From looking at the
>>>   code behind CMS, it would appear that it's the one
>>>   >>> calling markdown based on the
>>>   imports in our files.  Unless we want to do
>>>   >>> something crazy like render
>>>   asciidoc in markdown format, then hand that
>>>   >>> over for rendering..
>>>   >>>
>>>   >>> Still
>>>   would need to convince that pulling from git over the svn
>>>   site is
>>>   >>> ideal as well.
>>>   >>>
>>>   >>>
>>>   John
>>>   >>>
>>>   >>>
>>>   >>> On
>>>   Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Rafael Benevides 
>>>   >>> wrote:
>>>   >>>
>>>   >>>  Em
>>>   8/8/14, 6:49, Pete Muir escreveu:
>>>   >>>>
>>>   >>>>   On 7 Aug 2014, at
>>>   18:47, Rafael Benevides 
>>>   >>>> wrote:
>>>   >>>>
>>>   >>>>>   Before we
>>>   have a deal with Michelle's team about these content
>>>   >>>>> changes,
>>>   >>>>>
>>>   >>>>>> I think we should
>&

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Rafael Benevides]

I ran the PoC and I do really thing that it works for DeltaSpike 
(considering that there's no restriction on CMS).


Can I give a green sign to Michelle start the docs refactoring (as 
planned) using Asciidoctor? I think that she and her team can work on 
its own repository and them move it in one big shot once that we have 
all requirements setup. Wdyt ?



Em 8/11/14, 8:17, John D. Ament escreveu:

@mark

That's what I based it on actually.


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Mark Struberg  wrote:


You can look at batchee.

Romain configured offline doc (with markdown, but could also be asciidoc)
and mvn scm-publish

LieGrue,
strub



On Sat, 9/8/14, John D. Ament  wrote:

  Subject: Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
  To: "deltaspike" 
  Date: Saturday, 9 August, 2014, 15:54

  Actually, from digging
  around their code, might have an easier solution, so
  long as everyone agrees.

  I have a small POC setup here:

https://github.com/johnament/deltaspike/commit/402becc0e450e551570107a1661d39e9eb6a43cb

  I setup a local VM w/ a SVN
  repo to test it out.  Basically, we can
  generate the asciidoc locally using mvn site,
  then run mvn site-deploy to
  move the
  rendered files to staging.  Once done, login to CMS and
  promote to
  prod.

  The only change would be to get infra to switch
  our script to use the shell
  option.  It
  does put the rendering process on whoever is writing the
  docs,
  but since it's using the java
  plugin and jruby, nothing should need to be
  downloaded separately to machines.


  On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:55
  PM, Rafael Benevides 
  wrote:

  > I
  remember that someone said that CMS already supports
  remote
  > repositories. Can't we start
  by having this documents moved soon while we
  > discuss about the asciidoc rendering ?
  >
  > Em 8/8/14, 10:53,
  Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
  >
  >  @john:
  >> the
  infra team is usually not the blocking part (if there is
  no
  >> significant
  >> technical issue and they don't get
  a new heavy part to maintain).
  >>
  >> regards,
  >>
  gerhard
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> 2014-08-08
  15:37 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
  >>
  >>  I think we
  need to convince infra@ that these are all must needed
  >>> features.
  >>>   From looking at the
  code behind CMS, it would appear that it's the one
  >>> calling markdown based on the
  imports in our files.  Unless we want to do
  >>> something crazy like render
  asciidoc in markdown format, then hand that
  >>> over for rendering..
  >>>
  >>> Still
  would need to convince that pulling from git over the svn
  site is
  >>> ideal as well.
  >>>
  >>>
  John
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> On
  Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Rafael Benevides 
  >>> wrote:
  >>>
  >>>  Em
  8/8/14, 6:49, Pete Muir escreveu:
  >>>>
  >>>>   On 7 Aug 2014, at
  18:47, Rafael Benevides 
  >>>> wrote:
  >>>>
  >>>>>   Before we
  have a deal with Michelle's team about these content
  >>>>> changes,
  >>>>>
  >>>>>> I think we should
  close the two other definitions:
  >>>>>>
  >>>>>> - docs location: move
  to deltaspike sources, create a new repository,
  >>>>>> other?
  >>>>>>
  >>>>>>  +1 to move to
  sources
  >>>>>
  >>>>>  +1 to move to sources
  >>>>
  >>>>and
  >>>>>
  >>>>>> -docs format: markdown
  or asciidoc
  >>>>>>
  >>>>>>  +1 for asciidoc.
  >>>>>
  >>>>>  +1 for asciidoc
  >>>>
  >>>>
  >>>>  However I believe we also
  need agree on:
  >>>>>
  >>>>> * add support for asciidoc
  to Apache CMS
  >>>>> * add
  support for importing external repo to Apache CMS
  >>>>>
  >>>>> so that the docs can still
  be build as part of the website.
  >>>>>
  >>>>>   From what
  people have said in the past, both are possible, if
  someone
  >>>>> (e.g. Rafael
  ;-) can spend a couple of days doing it.
  >>>>>
  >>>>>  Definitely I would like
  to help/handle that. I believe that both
  >>>>
  >>>
  (asciidoc
  >>>
  >>>> support + importing external
  repo) will bring open doors to
  >>>> documentation
  >>>> contribution.
  >>>>
  >>>>
  >>>>I believe

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[John D. Ament]

@mark

That's what I based it on actually.


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Mark Struberg  wrote:

> You can look at batchee.
>
> Romain configured offline doc (with markdown, but could also be asciidoc)
> and mvn scm-publish
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> 
> On Sat, 9/8/14, John D. Ament  wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
>  To: "deltaspike" 
>  Date: Saturday, 9 August, 2014, 15:54
>
>  Actually, from digging
>  around their code, might have an easier solution, so
>  long as everyone agrees.
>
>  I have a small POC setup here:
>
> https://github.com/johnament/deltaspike/commit/402becc0e450e551570107a1661d39e9eb6a43cb
>
>  I setup a local VM w/ a SVN
>  repo to test it out.  Basically, we can
>  generate the asciidoc locally using mvn site,
>  then run mvn site-deploy to
>  move the
>  rendered files to staging.  Once done, login to CMS and
>  promote to
>  prod.
>
>  The only change would be to get infra to switch
>  our script to use the shell
>  option.  It
>  does put the rendering process on whoever is writing the
>  docs,
>  but since it's using the java
>  plugin and jruby, nothing should need to be
>  downloaded separately to machines.
>
>
>  On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:55
>  PM, Rafael Benevides 
>  wrote:
>
>  > I
>  remember that someone said that CMS already supports
>  remote
>  > repositories. Can't we start
>  by having this documents moved soon while we
>  > discuss about the asciidoc rendering ?
>  >
>  > Em 8/8/14, 10:53,
>  Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
>  >
>  >  @john:
>  >> the
>  infra team is usually not the blocking part (if there is
>  no
>  >> significant
>  >> technical issue and they don't get
>  a new heavy part to maintain).
>  >>
>  >> regards,
>  >>
>  gerhard
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> 2014-08-08
>  15:37 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
>  >>
>  >>  I think we
>  need to convince infra@ that these are all must needed
>  >>> features.
>  >>>   From looking at the
>  code behind CMS, it would appear that it's the one
>  >>> calling markdown based on the
>  imports in our files.  Unless we want to do
>  >>> something crazy like render
>  asciidoc in markdown format, then hand that
>  >>> over for rendering..
>  >>>
>  >>> Still
>  would need to convince that pulling from git over the svn
>  site is
>  >>> ideal as well.
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  John
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> On
>  Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Rafael Benevides 
>  >>> wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>>  Em
>  8/8/14, 6:49, Pete Muir escreveu:
>  >>>>
>  >>>>   On 7 Aug 2014, at
>  18:47, Rafael Benevides 
>  >>>> wrote:
>  >>>>
>  >>>>>   Before we
>  have a deal with Michelle's team about these content
>  >>>>> changes,
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>>> I think we should
>  close the two other definitions:
>  >>>>>>
>  >>>>>> - docs location: move
>  to deltaspike sources, create a new repository,
>  >>>>>> other?
>  >>>>>>
>  >>>>>>  +1 to move to
>  sources
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>>  +1 to move to sources
>  >>>>
>  >>>>and
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>>> -docs format: markdown
>  or asciidoc
>  >>>>>>
>  >>>>>>  +1 for asciidoc.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>>  +1 for asciidoc
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>>  However I believe we also
>  need agree on:
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> * add support for asciidoc
>  to Apache CMS
>  >>>>> * add
>  support for importing external repo to Apache CMS
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> so that the docs can still
>  be build as part of the website.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>>   From what
>  people have said in the past, both are possible, if
>  someone
>  >>>>> (e.g. Rafael
>  ;-) can spend a couple of days doing it.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>>  Definitely I would like
>  to help/handle that. I believe that both
>  >>>>
>  >>>
>  (asciidoc
>  >>>

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Mark Struberg]

You can look at batchee.

Romain configured offline doc (with markdown, but could also be asciidoc) and 
mvn scm-publish 

LieGrue,
strub



On Sat, 9/8/14, John D. Ament  wrote:

 Subject: Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
 To: "deltaspike" 
 Date: Saturday, 9 August, 2014, 15:54
 
 Actually, from digging
 around their code, might have an easier solution, so
 long as everyone agrees.
 
 I have a small POC setup here:
 
https://github.com/johnament/deltaspike/commit/402becc0e450e551570107a1661d39e9eb6a43cb
 
 I setup a local VM w/ a SVN
 repo to test it out.  Basically, we can
 generate the asciidoc locally using mvn site,
 then run mvn site-deploy to
 move the
 rendered files to staging.  Once done, login to CMS and
 promote to
 prod.
 
 The only change would be to get infra to switch
 our script to use the shell
 option.  It
 does put the rendering process on whoever is writing the
 docs,
 but since it's using the java
 plugin and jruby, nothing should need to be
 downloaded separately to machines.
 
 
 On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:55
 PM, Rafael Benevides 
 wrote:
 
 > I
 remember that someone said that CMS already supports
 remote
 > repositories. Can't we start
 by having this documents moved soon while we
 > discuss about the asciidoc rendering ?
 >
 > Em 8/8/14, 10:53,
 Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
 >
 >  @john:
 >> the
 infra team is usually not the blocking part (if there is
 no
 >> significant
 >> technical issue and they don't get
 a new heavy part to maintain).
 >>
 >> regards,
 >>
 gerhard
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> 2014-08-08
 15:37 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
 >>
 >>  I think we
 need to convince infra@ that these are all must needed
 >>> features.
 >>>   From looking at the
 code behind CMS, it would appear that it's the one
 >>> calling markdown based on the
 imports in our files.  Unless we want to do
 >>> something crazy like render
 asciidoc in markdown format, then hand that
 >>> over for rendering..
 >>>
 >>> Still
 would need to convince that pulling from git over the svn
 site is
 >>> ideal as well.
 >>>
 >>>
 John
 >>>
 >>>
 >>> On
 Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Rafael Benevides 
 >>> wrote:
 >>>
 >>>  Em
 8/8/14, 6:49, Pete Muir escreveu:
 >>>>
 >>>>   On 7 Aug 2014, at
 18:47, Rafael Benevides 
 >>>> wrote:
 >>>>
 >>>>>   Before we
 have a deal with Michelle's team about these content
 >>>>> changes,
 >>>>>
 >>>>>> I think we should
 close the two other definitions:
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> - docs location: move
 to deltaspike sources, create a new repository,
 >>>>>> other?
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>  +1 to move to
 sources
 >>>>>
 >>>>>  +1 to move to sources
 >>>>
 >>>>    and
 >>>>>
 >>>>>> -docs format: markdown
 or asciidoc
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>  +1 for asciidoc.
 >>>>>
 >>>>>  +1 for asciidoc
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>>  However I believe we also
 need agree on:
 >>>>>
 >>>>> * add support for asciidoc
 to Apache CMS
 >>>>> * add
 support for importing external repo to Apache CMS
 >>>>>
 >>>>> so that the docs can still
 be build as part of the website.
 >>>>>
 >>>>>   From what
 people have said in the past, both are possible, if
 someone
 >>>>> (e.g. Rafael
 ;-) can spend a couple of days doing it.
 >>>>>
 >>>>>  Definitely I would like
 to help/handle that. I believe that both
 >>>>
 >>>
 (asciidoc
 >>>
 >>>> support + importing external
 repo) will bring open doors to
 >>>> documentation
 >>>> contribution.
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>>    I believe that we should
 propose a vote to decided this, otherwise it
 >>>>>
 >>>>>> can become an endless
 discussion. Wdyt ?
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> Em 8/4/14, 17:28,
 Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>  @suggested content
 changes:
 >>>>>>> +1
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> regards,
 >>>>>>> gerhard
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> 2014-08-01 18:46
 GMT+

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[John D. Ament]

Actually, from digging around their code, might have an easier solution, so
long as everyone agrees.

I have a small POC setup here:
https://github.com/johnament/deltaspike/commit/402becc0e450e551570107a1661d39e9eb6a43cb

I setup a local VM w/ a SVN repo to test it out.  Basically, we can
generate the asciidoc locally using mvn site, then run mvn site-deploy to
move the rendered files to staging.  Once done, login to CMS and promote to
prod.

The only change would be to get infra to switch our script to use the shell
option.  It does put the rendering process on whoever is writing the docs,
but since it's using the java plugin and jruby, nothing should need to be
downloaded separately to machines.


On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Rafael Benevides 
wrote:

> I remember that someone said that CMS already supports remote
> repositories. Can't we start by having this documents moved soon while we
> discuss about the asciidoc rendering ?
>
> Em 8/8/14, 10:53, Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
>
>  @john:
>> the infra team is usually not the blocking part (if there is no
>> significant
>> technical issue and they don't get a new heavy part to maintain).
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-08-08 15:37 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
>>
>>  I think we need to convince infra@ that these are all must needed
>>> features.
>>>   From looking at the code behind CMS, it would appear that it's the one
>>> calling markdown based on the imports in our files.  Unless we want to do
>>> something crazy like render asciidoc in markdown format, then hand that
>>> over for rendering..
>>>
>>> Still would need to convince that pulling from git over the svn site is
>>> ideal as well.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Rafael Benevides 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Em 8/8/14, 6:49, Pete Muir escreveu:

   On 7 Aug 2014, at 18:47, Rafael Benevides 
 wrote:

>   Before we have a deal with Michelle's team about these content
> changes,
>
>> I think we should close the two other definitions:
>>
>> - docs location: move to deltaspike sources, create a new repository,
>> other?
>>
>>  +1 to move to sources
>
>  +1 to move to sources

and
>
>> -docs format: markdown or asciidoc
>>
>>  +1 for asciidoc.
>
>  +1 for asciidoc


  However I believe we also need agree on:
>
> * add support for asciidoc to Apache CMS
> * add support for importing external repo to Apache CMS
>
> so that the docs can still be build as part of the website.
>
>   From what people have said in the past, both are possible, if someone
> (e.g. Rafael ;-) can spend a couple of days doing it.
>
>  Definitely I would like to help/handle that. I believe that both

>>> (asciidoc
>>>
 support + importing external repo) will bring open doors to
 documentation
 contribution.


I believe that we should propose a vote to decided this, otherwise it
>
>> can become an endless discussion. Wdyt ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Em 8/4/14, 17:28, Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
>>
>>  @suggested content changes:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-08-01 18:46 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides >> >:
>>>
>>>  Hi all,
>>>
>>>  As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on
>>>  DeltaSpike docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the
>>>  documentation and bring us an awesome plan that is available
>>> here:
>>>  https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_
>>> amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2
>>>
>>>  The document is opened for comments.
>>>
>>>  Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but
>>> with
>>>  some community members is about the format and source of the
>>>  documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the
>>>  documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could
>>>  improve the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having
>>>  said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as
>>>  documentation format.
>>>
>>>  So what we have until now ?
>>>
>>>  - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS
>>>  community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
>>>  - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the
>>> site
>>>  source.
>>>  - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.
>>>
>>>  Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics
>>>  individually.
>>>
>>>  Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied
>>> on
>>>  this Thread) can follow the feedback.
>>>  --
>>>  *Rafael Benevides 

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Rafael Benevides]

I remember that someone said that CMS already supports remote 
repositories. Can't we start by having this documents moved soon while 
we discuss about the asciidoc rendering ?


Em 8/8/14, 10:53, Gerhard Petracek escreveu:

@john:
the infra team is usually not the blocking part (if there is no significant
technical issue and they don't get a new heavy part to maintain).

regards,
gerhard



2014-08-08 15:37 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :


I think we need to convince infra@ that these are all must needed
features.
  From looking at the code behind CMS, it would appear that it's the one
calling markdown based on the imports in our files.  Unless we want to do
something crazy like render asciidoc in markdown format, then hand that
over for rendering..

Still would need to convince that pulling from git over the svn site is
ideal as well.

John


On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Rafael Benevides 
wrote:


Em 8/8/14, 6:49, Pete Muir escreveu:

  On 7 Aug 2014, at 18:47, Rafael Benevides  wrote:

  Before we have a deal with Michelle's team about these content changes,

I think we should close the two other definitions:

- docs location: move to deltaspike sources, create a new repository,
other?


+1 to move to sources


+1 to move to sources


  and

-docs format: markdown or asciidoc


+1 for asciidoc.


+1 for asciidoc



However I believe we also need agree on:

* add support for asciidoc to Apache CMS
* add support for importing external repo to Apache CMS

so that the docs can still be build as part of the website.

  From what people have said in the past, both are possible, if someone
(e.g. Rafael ;-) can spend a couple of days doing it.


Definitely I would like to help/handle that. I believe that both

(asciidoc

support + importing external repo) will bring open doors to documentation
contribution.



  I believe that we should propose a vote to decided this, otherwise it

can become an endless discussion. Wdyt ?



Em 8/4/14, 17:28, Gerhard Petracek escreveu:


@suggested content changes:
+1

regards,
gerhard



2014-08-01 18:46 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides mailto:benevi...@redhat.com>>:

 Hi all,

 As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on
 DeltaSpike docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the
 documentation and bring us an awesome plan that is available here:
 https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_
amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2

 The document is opened for comments.

 Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with
 some community members is about the format and source of the
 documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the
 documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could
 improve the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having
 said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as
 documentation format.

 So what we have until now ?

 - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS
 community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
 - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site
 source.
 - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.

 Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics
 individually.

 Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on
 this Thread) can follow the feedback.
 --
 *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
 JBoss Developer
 M: +55-61-9269-6576 

 Red Hat

 Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
 collaboration.
 See how it works at www.redhat.com 

 LinkedIn  Youtube
 

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Gerhard Petracek]

@john:
the infra team is usually not the blocking part (if there is no significant
technical issue and they don't get a new heavy part to maintain).

regards,
gerhard



2014-08-08 15:37 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :

> I think we need to convince infra@ that these are all must needed
> features.
>  From looking at the code behind CMS, it would appear that it's the one
> calling markdown based on the imports in our files.  Unless we want to do
> something crazy like render asciidoc in markdown format, then hand that
> over for rendering..
>
> Still would need to convince that pulling from git over the svn site is
> ideal as well.
>
> John
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Rafael Benevides 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Em 8/8/14, 6:49, Pete Muir escreveu:
> >
> >  On 7 Aug 2014, at 18:47, Rafael Benevides  wrote:
> >>
> >>  Before we have a deal with Michelle's team about these content changes,
> >>> I think we should close the two other definitions:
> >>>
> >>> - docs location: move to deltaspike sources, create a new repository,
> >>> other?
> >>>
> >> +1 to move to sources
> >>
> > +1 to move to sources
> >
> >>
> >>  and
> >>> -docs format: markdown or asciidoc
> >>>
> >> +1 for asciidoc.
> >>
> > +1 for asciidoc
> >
> >
> >> However I believe we also need agree on:
> >>
> >> * add support for asciidoc to Apache CMS
> >> * add support for importing external repo to Apache CMS
> >>
> >> so that the docs can still be build as part of the website.
> >>
> >>  From what people have said in the past, both are possible, if someone
> >> (e.g. Rafael ;-) can spend a couple of days doing it.
> >>
> > Definitely I would like to help/handle that. I believe that both
> (asciidoc
> > support + importing external repo) will bring open doors to documentation
> > contribution.
> >
> >
> >>  I believe that we should propose a vote to decided this, otherwise it
> >>> can become an endless discussion. Wdyt ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Em 8/4/14, 17:28, Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
> >>>
>  @suggested content changes:
>  +1
> 
>  regards,
>  gerhard
> 
> 
> 
>  2014-08-01 18:46 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides   >:
> 
>  Hi all,
> 
>  As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on
>  DeltaSpike docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the
>  documentation and bring us an awesome plan that is available here:
>  https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_
>  amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2
> 
>  The document is opened for comments.
> 
>  Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with
>  some community members is about the format and source of the
>  documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the
>  documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could
>  improve the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having
>  said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as
>  documentation format.
> 
>  So what we have until now ?
> 
>  - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS
>  community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
>  - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site
>  source.
>  - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.
> 
>  Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics
>  individually.
> 
>  Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on
>  this Thread) can follow the feedback.
>  --
>  *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
>  JBoss Developer
>  M: +55-61-9269-6576 
> 
>  Red Hat
> 
>  Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
>  collaboration.
>  See how it works at www.redhat.com 
> 
>  LinkedIn  Youtube
>  
> 
> 
> 
> >
>

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[John D. Ament]

I think we need to convince infra@ that these are all must needed features.
 From looking at the code behind CMS, it would appear that it's the one
calling markdown based on the imports in our files.  Unless we want to do
something crazy like render asciidoc in markdown format, then hand that
over for rendering..

Still would need to convince that pulling from git over the svn site is
ideal as well.

John


On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Rafael Benevides 
wrote:

>
> Em 8/8/14, 6:49, Pete Muir escreveu:
>
>  On 7 Aug 2014, at 18:47, Rafael Benevides  wrote:
>>
>>  Before we have a deal with Michelle's team about these content changes,
>>> I think we should close the two other definitions:
>>>
>>> - docs location: move to deltaspike sources, create a new repository,
>>> other?
>>>
>> +1 to move to sources
>>
> +1 to move to sources
>
>>
>>  and
>>> -docs format: markdown or asciidoc
>>>
>> +1 for asciidoc.
>>
> +1 for asciidoc
>
>
>> However I believe we also need agree on:
>>
>> * add support for asciidoc to Apache CMS
>> * add support for importing external repo to Apache CMS
>>
>> so that the docs can still be build as part of the website.
>>
>>  From what people have said in the past, both are possible, if someone
>> (e.g. Rafael ;-) can spend a couple of days doing it.
>>
> Definitely I would like to help/handle that. I believe that both (asciidoc
> support + importing external repo) will bring open doors to documentation
> contribution.
>
>
>>  I believe that we should propose a vote to decided this, otherwise it
>>> can become an endless discussion. Wdyt ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Em 8/4/14, 17:28, Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
>>>
 @suggested content changes:
 +1

 regards,
 gerhard



 2014-08-01 18:46 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides >>> >:

 Hi all,

 As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on
 DeltaSpike docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the
 documentation and bring us an awesome plan that is available here:
 https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_
 amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2

 The document is opened for comments.

 Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with
 some community members is about the format and source of the
 documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the
 documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could
 improve the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having
 said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as
 documentation format.

 So what we have until now ?

 - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS
 community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
 - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site
 source.
 - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.

 Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics
 individually.

 Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on
 this Thread) can follow the feedback.
 --
 *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
 JBoss Developer
 M: +55-61-9269-6576 

 Red Hat

 Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
 collaboration.
 See how it works at www.redhat.com 

 LinkedIn  Youtube
 



>

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Rafael Benevides]

Em 8/8/14, 6:49, Pete Muir escreveu:

On 7 Aug 2014, at 18:47, Rafael Benevides  wrote:


Before we have a deal with Michelle's team about these content changes, I think 
we should close the two other definitions:

- docs location: move to deltaspike sources, create a new repository, other?

+1 to move to sources

+1 to move to sources



and
-docs format: markdown or asciidoc

+1 for asciidoc.

+1 for asciidoc


However I believe we also need agree on:

* add support for asciidoc to Apache CMS
* add support for importing external repo to Apache CMS

so that the docs can still be build as part of the website.

 From what people have said in the past, both are possible, if someone (e.g. 
Rafael ;-) can spend a couple of days doing it.
Definitely I would like to help/handle that. I believe that both 
(asciidoc support + importing external repo) will bring open doors to 
documentation contribution.



I believe that we should propose a vote to decided this, otherwise it can 
become an endless discussion. Wdyt ?



Em 8/4/14, 17:28, Gerhard Petracek escreveu:

@suggested content changes:
+1

regards,
gerhard



2014-08-01 18:46 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides mailto:benevi...@redhat.com>>:

Hi all,

As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on
DeltaSpike docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the
documentation and bring us an awesome plan that is available here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2

The document is opened for comments.

Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with
some community members is about the format and source of the
documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the
documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could
improve the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having
said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as
documentation format.

So what we have until now ?

- The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS
community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
- The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site
source.
- The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.

Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics
individually.

Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on
this Thread) can follow the feedback.
--
*Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
JBoss Developer
M: +55-61-9269-6576 

Red Hat

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
collaboration.
See how it works at www.redhat.com 

LinkedIn  Youtube

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Pete Muir]

On 7 Aug 2014, at 18:47, Rafael Benevides  wrote:

> Before we have a deal with Michelle's team about these content changes, I 
> think we should close the two other definitions:
> 
> - docs location: move to deltaspike sources, create a new repository, other?

+1 to move to sources

> and
> -docs format: markdown or asciidoc

+1 for asciidoc.

However I believe we also need agree on:

* add support for asciidoc to Apache CMS
* add support for importing external repo to Apache CMS

so that the docs can still be build as part of the website.

From what people have said in the past, both are possible, if someone (e.g. 
Rafael ;-) can spend a couple of days doing it.

> 
> I believe that we should propose a vote to decided this, otherwise it can 
> become an endless discussion. Wdyt ?
> 
> 
> 
> Em 8/4/14, 17:28, Gerhard Petracek escreveu:
>> @suggested content changes:
>> +1
>> 
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2014-08-01 18:46 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides > >:
>> 
>>Hi all,
>> 
>>As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on
>>DeltaSpike docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the
>>documentation and bring us an awesome plan that is available here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2
>> 
>>The document is opened for comments.
>> 
>>Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with
>>some community members is about the format and source of the
>>documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the
>>documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could
>>improve the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having
>>said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as
>>documentation format.
>> 
>>So what we have until now ?
>> 
>>- The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS
>>community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
>>- The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site
>>source.
>>- The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.
>> 
>>Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics
>>individually.
>> 
>>Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on
>>this Thread) can follow the feedback.
>>-- 
>>*Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
>>JBoss Developer
>>M: +55-61-9269-6576 
>> 
>>Red Hat
>> 
>>Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
>>collaboration.
>>See how it works at www.redhat.com 
>> 
>>LinkedIn  Youtube
>>
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Rafael Benevides]

Before we have a deal with Michelle's team about these content changes, 
I think we should close the two other definitions:


- docs location: move to deltaspike sources, create a new repository, other?
and
-docs format: markdown or asciidoc

I believe that we should propose a vote to decided this, otherwise it 
can become an endless discussion. Wdyt ?




Em 8/4/14, 17:28, Gerhard Petracek escreveu:

@suggested content changes:
+1

regards,
gerhard



2014-08-01 18:46 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides >:


Hi all,

As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on
DeltaSpike docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the
documentation and bring us an awesome plan that is available here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2

The document is opened for comments.

Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with
some community members is about the format and source of the
documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the
documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could
improve the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having
said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as
documentation format.

So what we have until now ?

- The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS
community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
- The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site
source.
- The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.

Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics
individually.

Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on
this Thread) can follow the feedback.
-- 


*Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
JBoss Developer
M: +55-61-9269-6576 

Red Hat

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
collaboration.
See how it works at www.redhat.com 

LinkedIn  Youtube

Re: [DeltaSpike SHADOW] DeltaSpike docs plan

[Pete Muir]

On 1 Aug 2014, at 17:46, Rafael Benevides  wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on DeltaSpike docs. 
> After a long period, they have analyzed the documentation and bring us an 
> awesome plan that is available here: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2
> 
> The document is opened for comments.
> 
> Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with some 
> community members is about the format and source of the documentation. I 
> strongly believe that we should have the documentation somewhere else but the 
> DS site source. It could improve the ease to the community to contribute with 
> it. Having said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as 
> documentation format.
> 
> So what we have until now ?
> 
> - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS community. 
> Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.

+1 for the content changes, whatever else. This is the most important thing for 
the wider community IMO.

> - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site source.

This would be nice. It can then be imported by e.g. an svn submodule or git 
checkout as part of the site build

> - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.

+1 asciidoc is really nice, it allows you do a lot of stuff you would like to 
do in markdown (e.g. tables) but can’t without non-standard extensions.

> 
> Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics individually.
> 
> Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on this 
> Thread) can follow the feedback. 
> -- 
> 
> Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer
> JBoss Developer
> M: +55-61-9269-6576
> 
> <{a8aabf3a-4467-4e37-9bc5-48b1d7b494a2}_LATAM_RedHat.jpg>
> 
> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. 
> See how it works at www.redhat.com 
> 
>  

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Gerhard Petracek]

@suggested content changes:
+1

regards,
gerhard



2014-08-01 18:46 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides :

>  Hi all,
>
> As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on DeltaSpike docs.
> After a long period, they have analyzed the documentation and bring us an
> awesome plan that is available here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2
>
> The document is opened for comments.
>
> Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with some
> community members is about the format and source of the documentation. I
> strongly believe that we should have the documentation somewhere else but
> the DS site source. It could improve the ease to the community to
> contribute with it. Having said that, it's also suggested that we should
> use asciidoc as documentation format.
>
> So what we have until now ?
>
> - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS community.
> Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
> - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site source.
> - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.
>
> Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics individually.
>
> Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on this
> Thread) can follow the feedback.
> --
>
> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
> JBoss Developer
> M: +55-61-9269-6576
>
> [image: Red Hat]
>
> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
> See how it works at www.redhat.com
>
> [image: LinkedIn]  [image:
> Youtube] 
>

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Mark Struberg]

afaik doing the CMS via svnpubsub is only for convenience. We could 
theoretically also generate the html pages somewhere else. But at the end of 
the day we need to push it to svn to publish it. This is our way to make sure 
we have all in a proper historic context. 

LieGrue,
strub


On Monday, 4 August 2014, 20:29, Romain Manni-Bucau  
wrote:
 

>
>
>2014-08-04 18:20 GMT+00:00 Rafael Benevides :
>> It seemed at the first looks that it makes you tight with SVN for repo,
>
>true but you don't have to see it if you don't want
>
>> Markdown for format,
>
>that's the default only
>
>> and doesn't allow you to embed other documents.
>>
>
>It does
>
>> Something that came in my mind was to have the documentation as a git
>> submodule of the DeltaSpike site, that way we can have it linked and splited
>> at the same time.
>>
>
>I think we *have* to put the doc in deltaspike (no indirection) to
>keep it consistent
>
>
>> Em 8/4/14, 15:17, Romain Manni-Bucau escreveu:
>>
>>> Almost: http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html
>>>
>>> What's the issue with CMS?
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-08-04 20:15 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides :

 Maybe it's a silly question: Does all Apache project needs to use Apache
 CMS
 ?


 Em 8/4/14, 13:51, John D. Ament escreveu:
>
> There may be some issues here.  For one, does anyone know if the apache
> CMS can work in the proposed format?  I believe it's a requirement
> currently
> to separate them.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Rafael Benevides  > wrote:
>
>      Hi all,
>
>      As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on
>      DeltaSpike docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the
>      documentation and bring us an awesome plan that is available here:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2
>
>      The document is opened for comments.
>
>      Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with
>      some community members is about the format and source of the
>      documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the
>      documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could
>      improve the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having
>      said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as
>      documentation format.
>
>      So what we have until now ?
>
>      - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS
>      community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
>      - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site
>      source.
>      - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.
>
>      Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics
>      individually.
>
>      Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on
>      this Thread) can follow the feedback.
>      --
>      *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
>      JBoss Developer
>      M: +55-61-9269-6576 
>
>
>      Red Hat
>
>      Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
>      collaboration.
>      See how it works at www.redhat.com 
>
>      LinkedIn  Youtube
>      
>
>
>>
>
>
>

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

2014-08-04 18:20 GMT+00:00 Rafael Benevides :
> It seemed at the first looks that it makes you tight with SVN for repo,

true but you don't have to see it if you don't want

> Markdown for format,

that's the default only

> and doesn't allow you to embed other documents.
>

It does

> Something that came in my mind was to have the documentation as a git
> submodule of the DeltaSpike site, that way we can have it linked and splited
> at the same time.
>

I think we *have* to put the doc in deltaspike (no indirection) to
keep it consistent

> Em 8/4/14, 15:17, Romain Manni-Bucau escreveu:
>
>> Almost: http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html
>>
>> What's the issue with CMS?
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>> 2014-08-04 20:15 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides :
>>>
>>> Maybe it's a silly question: Does all Apache project needs to use Apache
>>> CMS
>>> ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Em 8/4/14, 13:51, John D. Ament escreveu:

 There may be some issues here.  For one, does anyone know if the apache
 CMS can work in the proposed format?  I believe it's a requirement
 currently
 to separate them.


 On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Rafael Benevides >>> > wrote:

  Hi all,

  As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on
  DeltaSpike docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the
  documentation and bring us an awesome plan that is available here:


 https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2

  The document is opened for comments.

  Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with
  some community members is about the format and source of the
  documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the
  documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could
  improve the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having
  said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as
  documentation format.

  So what we have until now ?

  - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS
  community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
  - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site
  source.
  - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.

  Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics
  individually.

  Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on
  this Thread) can follow the feedback.
  --
  *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
  JBoss Developer
  M: +55-61-9269-6576 


  Red Hat

  Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
  collaboration.
  See how it works at www.redhat.com 

  LinkedIn  Youtube
  


>

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Rafael Benevides]

It seemed at the first looks that it makes you tight with SVN for repo, 
Markdown for format, and doesn't allow you to embed other documents.


Something that came in my mind was to have the documentation as a git 
submodule of the DeltaSpike site, that way we can have it linked and 
splited at the same time.


Em 8/4/14, 15:17, Romain Manni-Bucau escreveu:

Almost: http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html

What's the issue with CMS?


Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau


2014-08-04 20:15 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides :

Maybe it's a silly question: Does all Apache project needs to use Apache CMS
?


Em 8/4/14, 13:51, John D. Ament escreveu:

There may be some issues here.  For one, does anyone know if the apache
CMS can work in the proposed format?  I believe it's a requirement currently
to separate them.


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Rafael Benevides mailto:benevi...@redhat.com>> wrote:

 Hi all,

 As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on
 DeltaSpike docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the
 documentation and bring us an awesome plan that is available here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2

 The document is opened for comments.

 Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with
 some community members is about the format and source of the
 documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the
 documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could
 improve the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having
 said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as
 documentation format.

 So what we have until now ?

 - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS
 community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
 - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site
 source.
 - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.

 Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics
 individually.

 Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on
 this Thread) can follow the feedback.
 --
 *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
 JBoss Developer
 M: +55-61-9269-6576 


 Red Hat

 Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
 collaboration.
 See how it works at www.redhat.com 

 LinkedIn  Youtube
 

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Almost: http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html

What's the issue with CMS?


Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau


2014-08-04 20:15 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides :
> Maybe it's a silly question: Does all Apache project needs to use Apache CMS
> ?
>
>
> Em 8/4/14, 13:51, John D. Ament escreveu:
>>
>> There may be some issues here.  For one, does anyone know if the apache
>> CMS can work in the proposed format?  I believe it's a requirement currently
>> to separate them.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Rafael Benevides > > wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on
>> DeltaSpike docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the
>> documentation and bring us an awesome plan that is available here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2
>>
>> The document is opened for comments.
>>
>> Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with
>> some community members is about the format and source of the
>> documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the
>> documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could
>> improve the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having
>> said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as
>> documentation format.
>>
>> So what we have until now ?
>>
>> - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS
>> community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
>> - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site
>> source.
>> - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.
>>
>> Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics
>> individually.
>>
>> Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on
>> this Thread) can follow the feedback.
>> --
>> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
>> JBoss Developer
>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 
>>
>>
>> Red Hat
>>
>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
>> collaboration.
>> See how it works at www.redhat.com 
>>
>> LinkedIn  Youtube
>> 
>>
>>
>

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Rafael Benevides]

Maybe it's a silly question: Does all Apache project needs to use Apache 
CMS ?



Em 8/4/14, 13:51, John D. Ament escreveu:
There may be some issues here.  For one, does anyone know if the 
apache CMS can work in the proposed format?  I believe it's a 
requirement currently to separate them.



On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Rafael Benevides 
mailto:benevi...@redhat.com>> wrote:


Hi all,

As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on
DeltaSpike docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the
documentation and bring us an awesome plan that is available here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2

The document is opened for comments.

Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with
some community members is about the format and source of the
documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the
documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could
improve the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having
said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as
documentation format.

So what we have until now ?

- The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS
community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
- The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site
source.
- The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.

Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics
individually.

Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on
this Thread) can follow the feedback.
-- 


*Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
JBoss Developer
M: +55-61-9269-6576 

Red Hat

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
collaboration.
See how it works at www.redhat.com 

LinkedIn  Youtube

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Hi

@John: apache cms is extensible enough to work with what we want (even docx
or xls :p). Just need somebody with 1-2 days to hack the rendering and wire
it in perl in the DS cms integratino.



Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau


2014-08-04 18:51 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :

> There may be some issues here.  For one, does anyone know if the apache
> CMS can work in the proposed format?  I believe it's a requirement
> currently to separate them.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Rafael Benevides 
> wrote:
>
>>  Hi all,
>>
>> As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on DeltaSpike
>> docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the documentation and bring
>> us an awesome plan that is available here:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2
>>
>> The document is opened for comments.
>>
>> Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with some
>> community members is about the format and source of the documentation. I
>> strongly believe that we should have the documentation somewhere else but
>> the DS site source. It could improve the ease to the community to
>> contribute with it. Having said that, it's also suggested that we should
>> use asciidoc as documentation format.
>>
>> So what we have until now ?
>>
>> - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS community.
>> Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
>> - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site source.
>> - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.
>>
>> Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics individually.
>>
>> Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on this
>> Thread) can follow the feedback.
>> --
>>
>> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
>> JBoss Developer
>> M: +55-61-9269-6576
>>
>> [image: Red Hat]
>>
>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
>> See how it works at www.redhat.com
>>
>> [image: LinkedIn]  [image:
>> Youtube] 
>>
>
>

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[John D. Ament]

There may be some issues here.  For one, does anyone know if the apache CMS
can work in the proposed format?  I believe it's a requirement currently to
separate them.


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Rafael Benevides 
wrote:

>  Hi all,
>
> As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on DeltaSpike docs.
> After a long period, they have analyzed the documentation and bring us an
> awesome plan that is available here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2
>
> The document is opened for comments.
>
> Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with some
> community members is about the format and source of the documentation. I
> strongly believe that we should have the documentation somewhere else but
> the DS site source. It could improve the ease to the community to
> contribute with it. Having said that, it's also suggested that we should
> use asciidoc as documentation format.
>
> So what we have until now ?
>
> - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS community.
> Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
> - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site source.
> - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.
>
> Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics individually.
>
> Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on this
> Thread) can follow the feedback.
> --
>
> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
> JBoss Developer
> M: +55-61-9269-6576
>
> [image: Red Hat]
>
> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
> See how it works at www.redhat.com
>
> [image: LinkedIn]  [image:
> Youtube] 
>

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Antoine Sabot-Durand]

+1 for me as well. Having the doc source with source code is a must have
IMO.

Antoine Sabot-Durand

Le 4 août 2014 à 17:52, Jason Porter  a écrit :

Wow, looks like a lot of work was spent on the analysis of the
documentation! Thanks Michelle!

+1 from me for all the suggestions.


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Rafael Benevides 
wrote:

>  Hi all,
>
> As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on DeltaSpike docs.
> After a long period, they have analyzed the documentation and bring us an
> awesome plan that is available here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2
>
> The document is opened for comments.
>
> Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with some
> community members is about the format and source of the documentation. I
> strongly believe that we should have the documentation somewhere else but
> the DS site source. It could improve the ease to the community to
> contribute with it. Having said that, it's also suggested that we should
> use asciidoc as documentation format.
>
> So what we have until now ?
>
> - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS community.
> Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
> - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site source.
> - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.
>
> Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics individually.
>
> Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on this
> Thread) can follow the feedback.
> --
>
> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
> JBoss Developer
> M: +55-61-9269-6576
>
> [image: Red Hat]
>
> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
> See how it works at www.redhat.com
>
> [image: LinkedIn]  [image:
> Youtube] 
>



-- 
Jason Porter
http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan

[Jason Porter]

Wow, looks like a lot of work was spent on the analysis of the
documentation! Thanks Michelle!

+1 from me for all the suggestions.


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Rafael Benevides 
wrote:

>  Hi all,
>
> As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on DeltaSpike docs.
> After a long period, they have analyzed the documentation and bring us an
> awesome plan that is available here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2
>
> The document is opened for comments.
>
> Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with some
> community members is about the format and source of the documentation. I
> strongly believe that we should have the documentation somewhere else but
> the DS site source. It could improve the ease to the community to
> contribute with it. Having said that, it's also suggested that we should
> use asciidoc as documentation format.
>
> So what we have until now ?
>
> - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS community.
> Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.
> - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site source.
> - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.
>
> Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics individually.
>
> Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on this
> Thread) can follow the feedback.
> --
>
> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
> JBoss Developer
> M: +55-61-9269-6576
>
> [image: Red Hat]
>
> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
> See how it works at www.redhat.com
>
> [image: LinkedIn]  [image:
> Youtube] 
>



-- 
Jason Porter
http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp

Re: DeltaSpike docs plan - About documentation format

[Rafael Benevides]

As talked with Gerhard.

The reasons to use asciidoc are because  it's easily exportable to PDF, 
HTML, and it's also easy to contribute. It can be used to export also to 
epub and It can be used to write books...


Em 8/1/14, 13:46, Rafael Benevides escreveu:

Hi all,

As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on DeltaSpike 
docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the documentation and 
bring us an awesome plan that is available here: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2


The document is opened for comments.

Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with 
some community members is about the format and source of the 
documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the 
documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could improve 
the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having said that, 
it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as documentation format.


So what we have until now ?

- The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS 
community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.

- The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site source.
- The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.

Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics individually.

Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on 
this Thread) can follow the feedback.

--

*Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
JBoss Developer
M: +55-61-9269-6576

Red Hat

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at www.redhat.com 

LinkedIn  Youtube 

DeltaSpike docs plan

[Rafael Benevides]

Hi all,

As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on DeltaSpike 
docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the documentation and 
bring us an awesome plan that is available here: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2


The document is opened for comments.

Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with some 
community members is about the format and source of the documentation. I 
strongly believe that we should have the documentation somewhere else 
but the DS site source. It could improve the ease to the community to 
contribute with it. Having said that, it's also suggested that we should 
use asciidoc as documentation format.


So what we have until now ?

- The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS 
community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.

- The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site source.
- The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.

Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics individually.

Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on this 
Thread) can follow the feedback.

--

*Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
JBoss Developer
M: +55-61-9269-6576

Red Hat

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at www.redhat.com 

LinkedIn  Youtube 

DeltaSpike docs plan

[Rafael Benevides]

Hi all,

As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on DeltaSpike 
docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the documentation and 
bring us an awesome plan that is available here: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2


The document is opened for comments.

Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with some 
community members is about the format and source of the documentation. I 
strongly believe that we should have the documentation somewhere else 
but the DS site source. It could improve the ease to the community to 
contribute with it. Having said that, it's also suggested that we should 
use asciidoc as documentation format.


So what we have until now ?

- The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS 
community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen.

- The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site source.
- The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc.

Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics individually.

Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on this 
Thread) can follow the feedback.

--

*Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
JBoss Developer
M: +55-61-9269-6576

Red Hat

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at www.redhat.com 

LinkedIn  Youtube