Le 13 juin 05, à 17:16, Linden H van der ((MI)) a écrit :
Based on some comments I would like to revise the proposal...
I'm fine with everything you suggest, just a few comments below.
...- this documentation is targeted at Cocoon 2.1. This means that we
try
to write version-independent
Hi Bertrand,
P.S. Helma, it seems like your mailer is breaking threads sometimes,
but not always. For example, [2] starts a new thread although it is
obviously a reply to [3]. If it's easy to fix it might be
good for our
archives.
[2]
Linden H van der (MI) wrote:
Hi Bertrand,
P.S. Helma, it seems like your mailer is breaking threads sometimes,
but not always. For example, [2] starts a new thread although it is
obviously a reply to [3]. If it's easy to fix it might be
good for our
archives.
[2]
Guys,
I'm aware that I'm not officially a committer (yet), however, I think it
will be a good idea to get explicit consensus on where to locate the
docs and about a rough outline of the future actions.
This is the proposal:
- the current Daisy site at the zones [1] will be the incubator for
the
Linden H van der (MI) wrote:
Many thanks for the summary and the vote. I have to admit that I wasn't able to
read all the mails.
Guys,
I'm aware that I'm not officially a committer (yet), however, I think it
will be a good idea to get explicit consensus on where to locate the
docs and about
Linden H van der (MI) wrote:
Guys,
I'm aware that I'm not officially a committer (yet), however, I think it
will be a good idea to get explicit consensus on where to locate the
docs and about a rough outline of the future actions.
This is the proposal:
- the current Daisy site at the zones
Il giorno 13/giu/05, alle 09:53, Leszek Gawron ha scritto:
Linden H van der (MI) wrote:
- this documentation is targeted at Cocoon 2.2. This means that we try
to write version-independent documentation, but when there is a
difference between 2.1 and 2.2, the documentation will describe 2.2.
Linden H van der (MI) wrote:
Guys,
I'm aware that I'm not officially a committer (yet), however, I think it
will be a good idea to get explicit consensus on where to locate the
docs and about a rough outline of the future actions.
This is the proposal:
- the current Daisy site at the zones
Reinhard,
Maybe it has already been discussed and then I'm more than
happy with a link but
if not, can you explain the process of how our documentation
gets published
(http://cocoon.apache.org)? IIUC,
cocoon.zones.apache.org/daisy/ is our staging
area and not the official
Linden H van der (MI) wrote:
Reinhard,
Maybe it has already been discussed and then I'm more than
happy with a link but
if not, can you explain the process of how our documentation
gets published
(http://cocoon.apache.org)? IIUC,
cocoon.zones.apache.org/daisy/ is our staging
area and not
yes, the usual javadocs, the page generated out of
trunk/lib/jars.xml and the
pages generated out of the javadocs of sitemap components.
To me this is API docs and serve a special purpose.
_I_ would be perfectly happy if they were in an accessible place, with
links to it from the ordinary
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Same concerns as Ugo. We should IMO document 2.1 and use specially
labelled sections and pages for what's different in 2.2. We could also
uses Daisy branches, but I don't think it's a good idea to start a
multi-branch effort right now.
I agree with this also.
-
Ralph Goers wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Same concerns as Ugo. We should IMO document 2.1 and use specially
labelled sections and pages for what's different in 2.2. We could also
uses Daisy branches, but I don't think it's a good idea to start a
multi-branch effort right now.
I agree
On Jun 13, 2005, at 3:27 AM, Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 13/giu/05, alle 09:53, Leszek Gawron ha scritto:
Linden H van der (MI) wrote:
- this documentation is targeted at Cocoon 2.2. This means that
we try
to write version-independent documentation, but when there is a
difference between
Based on some comments I would like to revise the proposal. Let's focus
first on what info goes where and what the general direction will be.
As things progress, we can focus on explicit processes and, given the
current discussion, the roles/rights.
- the current Daisy site at the zones [1] will
On 13 Jun 2005, at 16:13, Glen Ezkovich wrote:
One of the current limitations of Daisy is that we have only 3 roles.
We need a fourth. Publishers, who make a document official and
publish it to the main documentation site.
You can have an official documentation site with a navtree that is
Linden H van der (MI) wrote:
Based on some comments I would like to revise the proposal. Let's focus
first on what info goes where and what the general direction will be.
As things progress, we can focus on explicit processes and, given the
current discussion, the roles/rights.
- the current
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Linden H van der (MI) wrote:
Reinhard,
Maybe it has already been discussed and then I'm more than happy with
a link but if not, can you explain the process of how our
documentation gets published (http://cocoon.apache.org)? IIUC,
cocoon.zones.apache.org/daisy/ is our
Ross Gardler wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Linden H van der (MI) wrote:
Reinhard,
Maybe it has already been discussed and then I'm more than happy
with a link but if not, can you explain the process of how our
documentation gets published (http://cocoon.apache.org)? IIUC,
On Jun 13, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Same concerns as Ugo. We should IMO document 2.1 and use specially
labelled sections and pages for what's different in 2.2. We could
also uses Daisy branches, but I don't think it's a good idea to
start a
On Jun 13, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Linden H van der (MI) wrote:
Based on some comments I would like to revise the proposal. Let's
focus
first on what info goes where and what the general direction will be.
As things progress, we can focus on explicit processes and, given the
current discussion,
21 matches
Mail list logo
