Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
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 john.d.am...@gmail.com 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 john.d.am...@gmail.com 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 lightguard...@gmail.com wrote: +1 from me. — Sent from Mailbox On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Rafael Benevides benevi...@redhat.com 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 strub...@yahoo.de 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 john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote: Subject: Re: DeltaSpike docs plan To: deltaspike dev@deltaspike.apache.org 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 john.d.am...@gmail.com: 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
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 john.d.am...@gmail.com 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 lightguard...@gmail.com wrote: +1 from me. — Sent from Mailbox On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Rafael Benevides benevi...@redhat.com 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 strub...@yahoo.de 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 john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote: Subject: Re: DeltaSpike docs plan To: deltaspike dev@deltaspike.apache.org 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 john.d.am...@gmail.com: 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
+1 from me. — Sent from Mailbox On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Rafael Benevides benevi...@redhat.com 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 strub...@yahoo.de 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 john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote: Subject: Re: DeltaSpike docs plan To: deltaspike dev@deltaspike.apache.org 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 john.d.am...@gmail.com: 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
+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 lightguard...@gmail.com wrote: +1 from me. — Sent from Mailbox On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Rafael Benevides benevi...@redhat.com 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 strub...@yahoo.de 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 john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote: Subject: Re: DeltaSpike docs plan To: deltaspike dev@deltaspike.apache.org 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 john.d.am...@gmail.com: 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 benevi...@redhat.com mailto:benevi...@redhat.com: Hi all, As you may known, Red Hat docs
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 john.d.am...@gmail.com: 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 tel:%2B55-61-9269-6576 Red Hat Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/ LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 Youtube https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
On 7 Aug 2014, at 18:47, Rafael Benevides benevi...@redhat.com 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 tel:%2B55-61-9269-6576 Red Hat Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/ LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 Youtube https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
Em 8/8/14, 6:49, Pete Muir escreveu: On 7 Aug 2014, at 18:47, Rafael Benevides benevi...@redhat.com 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 tel:%2B55-61-9269-6576 Red Hat Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/ LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 Youtube https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 tel:%2B55-61-9269-6576 Red Hat Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/ LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 Youtube https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
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 john.d.am...@gmail.com: 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 tel:%2B55-61-9269-6576 Red Hat Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/ LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 Youtube https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
Re: [DeltaSpike SHADOW] DeltaSpike docs plan
On 1 Aug 2014, at 17:46, Rafael Benevides 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.
+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
linkedin.png youtube.png
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
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 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 [image: Red Hat] Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com [image: LinkedIn] http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 [image: Youtube] https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam -- Jason Porter http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
+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 lightguard...@gmail.com 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 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 [image: Red Hat] Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com [image: LinkedIn] http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 [image: Youtube] https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam -- Jason Porter http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
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 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 [image: Red Hat] Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com [image: LinkedIn] http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 [image: Youtube] https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
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 john.d.am...@gmail.com: 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 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 [image: Red Hat] Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com [image: LinkedIn] http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 [image: Youtube] https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 tel:%2B55-61-9269-6576 Red Hat Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/ LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 Youtube https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
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 benevi...@redhat.com: 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 tel:%2B55-61-9269-6576 Red Hat Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/ LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 Youtube https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
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 benevi...@redhat.com: 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 tel:%2B55-61-9269-6576 Red Hat Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/ LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 Youtube https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
2014-08-04 18:20 GMT+00:00 Rafael Benevides benevi...@redhat.com: 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 benevi...@redhat.com: 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 tel:%2B55-61-9269-6576 Red Hat Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/ LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 Youtube https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
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 rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-08-04 18:20 GMT+00:00 Rafael Benevides benevi...@redhat.com: 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 benevi...@redhat.com: 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 benevi...@redhat.com 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 tel:%2B55-61-9269-6576 Red Hat Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/ LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 Youtube https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
Re: DeltaSpike docs plan
@suggested content changes: +1 regards, gerhard 2014-08-01 18:46 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides 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 [image: Red Hat] Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com [image: LinkedIn] http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 [image: Youtube] https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
DeltaSpike docs plan
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 http://www.redhat.com/ LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 Youtube https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
DeltaSpike docs plan
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 http://www.redhat.com/ LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 Youtube https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam
