>
> From: Daniel Gruno
>To: docs@httpd.apache.org
>Sent: Sunday, May 6, 2012 8:53 AM
>Subject: Re: Doing the main site first (was Re: Proposal to move docs to
>Apache CMS)
>
>On 05-05-2012 17:02, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Speaking w
On 05-05-2012 17:02, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Speaking with Daniel on IRC this morning convinced
> me that pushing for docs CMS adoption at this point
> remains a hard sell. We both agreed that migrating
> the main site first to the CMS would be better for all
> concerned, so let's go that route for
On May 5, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Speaking with Daniel on IRC this morning convinced
> me that pushing for docs CMS adoption at this point
> remains a hard sell. We both agreed that migrating
> the main site first to the CMS would be better for all
> concerned, so let's go that
approval.
Thoughts?
>
> From: Joe Schaefer
>To: "docs@httpd.apache.org"
>Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 3:22 PM
>Subject: Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS
>
>
>IME it's a bit of a challenge to get CMS users
>to pay at
pache.org; Joe Schaefer
>Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 3:19 PM
>Subject: Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS
>
>
>
>
>On May 4, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>It'll be interesting to see how codemirror2 handles
>>the custom character entities in the
an option to validate
>> the XML before allowing it to be submitted to the server.
>>
>> I doubt that's currently turned on, but if the code
>> does the right thing I might be convinced to enable it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
On May 4, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It'll be interesting to see how codemirror2 handles
> the custom character entities in the httpd docs, but assuming
> it doesn't choke there's probably an option to validate
> the XML before allowing it to be submitted to the server.
> I doubt tha
to the server.
>
> I doubt that's currently turned on, but if the code
> does the right thing I might be convinced to enable it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Rich Bowen
> To: docs@httpd.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
> Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:50 PM
>
code
does the right thing I might be convinced to enable it.
>
> From: Rich Bowen
>To: docs@httpd.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
>Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:50 PM
>Subject: Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS
>
>
>
>
>On May 4, 2012
On May 4, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> The advantage of the web interface as there are no additional prereqs-
> anyone (even a non-committer) can use the CMS and edit xml source files
> using a syntax-highlighted editor in their browser. Non-committers
> are expected to use the CMS we
>
> From: Tony Stevenson
>To: docs@httpd.apache.org
>Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:06 PM
>Subject: Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS
>
>Mads Toftum wrote on Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:26:41PM +0200:
>> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 05:07:1
Mads Toftum wrote on Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:26:41PM +0200:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 05:07:12PM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:
> > Ok, thanks to Tony for hand-holding me a little more through an explanation
> > of how this would work in practice.
> >
> > I feel that I was responding with inadequate u
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 05:07:12PM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Ok, thanks to Tony for hand-holding me a little more through an explanation
> of how this would work in practice.
>
> I feel that I was responding with inadequate understanding.
>
> So, I'm now firmly +1 on moving the docs to the Apa
Ok, thanks to Tony for hand-holding me a little more through an explanation of
how this would work in practice.
I feel that I was responding with inadequate understanding.
So, I'm now firmly +1 on moving the docs to the Apache CMS. There are still
parts of the process that are somewhat unclear
- Original Message -
> On Thursday 03 May 2012 15:38:32 Rich Bowen wrote:
> > On May 3, 2012, at 3:20 AM, André Malo wrote:
> > > Yes. Answering those questions above would be a big help. Beside
> > > the
> > > technical answers we should also point the people to the mailing
> > > list to
On Thursday 03 May 2012 15:38:32 Rich Bowen wrote:
> On May 3, 2012, at 3:20 AM, André Malo wrote:
> > Yes. Answering those questions above would be a big help. Beside the
> > technical answers we should also point the people to the mailing list to
> > ask their questions.
> > However, I'm also inc
On May 3, 2012, at 3:20 AM, André Malo wrote:
> Yes. Answering those questions above would be a big help. Beside the
> technical
> answers we should also point the people to the mailing list to ask their
> questions.
> However, I'm also inclined to say, that if we're not able to use our own
>
> My train of thoughts as I start from the front page is:
>
> 1) Where can I contribute to documentation? I don't see it
> 2) I'm a newbie, what or who is SVN?
> 3) How do I write a patch or check out a repo? (I see a LOT of bugs
> on
> the docs bugzilla where people obviously don't know what a pa
On 03-05-2012 09:20, André Malo wrote:
> Maybe I've missed it (quite possible), but did you ask here on the ML? I've
> heard a lot about IRC (or other) talks lately about this and that. Things
> should happen on the list - and not only the conclusions. Maybe we already
> would have a better self
On Thursday 03 May 2012 00:13:16 Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=apache+docs+transformation
> > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=httpd+docs+transformation
>
> "transformation" is not a word I would ever think to include in my
> search. Maybe I'm just not who y
On Thursday 03 May 2012 00:52:02 Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Clean slate here, because this is just some free thoughts:
>
> I am for moving both the site and the documentation to the CMS system if
> it indeed works as Tony explained. I'm also in favor of Noirin's
> suggestion about making how to contribu
On Thursday 03 May 2012 02:56:12 Rich Bowen wrote:
> On 2012 5 2 20:49, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
> > I already told everyone what changes are
> > required for the CMS to work properly
> > with the docs tree, starting with utf-8.
> > Some changes are trivial, others are not.
>
> Yes, you did, and its
On Wednesday 02 May 2012 23:50:21 Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> I've broken the build with poor XML more than once, so I don't like to
> check in anything I haven't built.
Oh, forgot to reply to this. We've taken care of that right from the
beginning. The docs structure is self-contained. You can ope
On 2012 5 2 20:49, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
>
> I already told everyone what changes are
> required for the CMS to work properly
> with the docs tree, starting with utf-8.
> Some changes are trivial, others are not.
>
Yes, you did, and its going to take me a bit to translate into specific
actions we
PM
>Subject: Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS
>
>
>
>On 2012 5 2 18:52, "Daniel Gruno" wrote:
>>
>> Clean slate here, because this is just some free thoughts:
>>
>> I am for moving both the site and the documentation to the CMS system if
>&g
On 2012 5 2 18:52, "Daniel Gruno" wrote:
>
> Clean slate here, because this is just some free thoughts:
>
> I am for moving both the site and the documentation to the CMS system if
> it indeed works as Tony explained. I'm also in favor of Noirin's
> suggestion about making how to contribute to doc
> Damn. Because this one looks at the bold "Documentation" link that's
> above the fold, clicks there, keeps navigating on for a bit and can't
> find what she wants. I'm glad that you're able to find them, but
> Subprojects isn't a heading that makes me think "oh, yeah, that's how
> I contribute" o
> >
> > http://httpd.apache.org/docs-project/docsformat.html
>
> Except that that page is a nightmare to find, and only tells me what
> to do after I'm already on step three.
>
> It might not seem like much hassle to you, but it's enough to blow
> away my motivation to fix anything.
>
For whatever
Clean slate here, because this is just some free thoughts:
I am for moving both the site and the documentation to the CMS system if
it indeed works as Tony explained. I'm also in favor of Noirin's
suggestion about making how to contribute to documentation clearer.
My train of thoughts as I start
On 03-05-2012 00:13, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> Damn. Because this one looks at the bold "Documentation" link that's
> above the fold, clicks there, keeps navigating on for a bit and can't
> find what she wants. I'm glad that you're able to find them, but
> Subprojects isn't a heading that makes me t
Nóirín Plunkett wrote on Wed, May 02, 2012 at 03:13:16PM -0700:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:07 PM, André Malo wrote:
> > * Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> >
> >> > [1] *Sigh* I'm wondering, why so many people here don't know about OUR
> >> > docs-project pages.
> >>
> >> They're hard to find. Even when
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:07 PM, André Malo wrote:
> * Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
>
>> > [1] *Sigh* I'm wondering, why so many people here don't know about OUR
>> > docs-project pages.
>>
>> They're hard to find. Even when I know they exist, I can't find them.
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/ is always
* Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> > [1] *Sigh* I'm wondering, why so many people here don't know about OUR
> > docs-project pages.
>
> They're hard to find. Even when I know they exist, I can't find them.
http://httpd.apache.org/ is always a good starting point. Then one navigates
on the left side t
Daniel Gruno wrote on Wed, May 02, 2012 at 11:53:48PM +0200:
> On 02-05-2012 23:40, André Malo wrote:
> >
> > More thoughts on this (unsorted):
> >
> > - Also it's a nice thing to check in documentation together with code. From
> > time to time patches arrive that way. In fact, I'd rather supp
Nóirín Plunkett wrote on Wed, May 02, 2012 at 02:50:21PM -0700:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM, André Malo wrote:
> > * Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> >>
> >> I, for one, welcome our new CMS overlords :-)
> >>
> >> Seriously though, the hassle of checking out the docs tree, finding
> >> the build tree
On 02-05-2012 23:40, André Malo wrote:
>
> More thoughts on this (unsorted):
>
> - Also it's a nice thing to check in documentation together with code. From
> time to time patches arrive that way. In fact, I'd rather support more of
> those.
>
> - Oh, patches. How does the CMS deal with th
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM, André Malo wrote:
> * Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
>>
>> I, for one, welcome our new CMS overlords :-)
>>
>> Seriously though, the hassle of checking out the docs tree, finding
>> the build tree, remembering where I'm meant to check that out to, ...
>> is, well, a hassle.
André Malo wrote on Wed, May 02, 2012 at 11:40:22PM +0200:
> OTOH, remembering where the CMS is and how it works, would actually be a
> hassle for *me* (and I'd guess, various developers trying to write
> documentation while writing code, too [which should be encouraged!]).
Actually, no. You br
* Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Joe Schaefer has proposed that we move our documentation to the Apache
> > CMS(?) system (or at least try it out with a copy of trunk). From what
> > I have gathered with my discussion with Joe, th
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Joe Schaefer has proposed that we move our documentation to the Apache
> CMS(?) system (or at least try it out with a copy of trunk). From what I
> have gathered with my discussion with Joe, this move would allow for
> certain diff
* Rich Bowen wrote:
> are we talking about the website, or the product documentation?
>
> The former, I can see an advantage to, but the latter I might take some
> convincing.
yep. I'm not.
nd
--
sub the($){+shift} sub answer (){ord q
[* It is always 42! *] }
print the
* Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2012, Rich Bowen wrote:
> > Hmm. I think I misread. are we talking about the website, or the
> > product documentation?
> >
> > The former, I can see an advantage to, but the latter I might take
> > some convincing. We ship those docs with the product,
I don't know much about the CMS->SVN system. We use the revision numbers
heavily to track translation age. Does this continue to work?
nd
* Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > From: Daniel Gruno
> > To: docs@httpd.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:36 A
gt; Cc:
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 12:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS
>
> - Original Message -
>
>> From: Daniel Gruno
>> To: docs@httpd.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:36 AM
>> S
On Monday 30 April 2012, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Hmm. I think I misread. are we talking about the website, or the
> product documentation?
>
> The former, I can see an advantage to, but the latter I might take
> some convincing. We ship those docs with the product, so
> maintaining them in the CMS mig
- Original Message -
> From: Daniel Gruno
> To: docs@httpd.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:36 AM
> Subject: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS
>
> Hi all,
>
> Joe Schaefer has proposed that we move our documentation to the Apache
> CMS(?) system (or at least try it
On Apr 30, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> Thanks for heading this up. I talked with Joe about this years ago, but then
> never followed up on it.
>
> My biggest question is whether it would require that we rewrite our XML, or
> if the existing XML is already in the right DTD?
>
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 05:36:29PM +0200, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Joe Schaefer has proposed that we move our documentation to the Apache
> CMS(?) system (or at least try it out with a copy of trunk). From what I
> have gathered with my discussion with Joe, this move would allow for
> certain differen
On Apr 30, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Joe Schaefer has proposed that we move our documentation to the Apache
> CMS(?) system (or at least try it out with a copy of trunk). From what I
> have gathered with my discussion with Joe, this move would allow for
> certain diffe
49 matches
Mail list logo
