Re: documentation for the maintenance branch
Christian Geisert wrote: > Please wait till after the release. Ok, most issues are solved now, I'll commit it to HEAD this weekend, not that the release is out. J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: documentation for the maintenance branch
Joerg Pietschmann schrieb: [..] > That's exactly what I'm currently doing, the HTML and the > intermediate document-DTD files are produced in the build > directory. Unfortunately, as I already noted, it's an > all-or-nothing thing unless you are comfortable with broken > doc builds for some time. > If this is ok, I can commit the first half tomorrow... Please wait till after the release. > J.Pietschmann Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: documentation for the maintenance branch
J.Pietschmann schrieb: [..] > The last checkin showed a "generate commit notification mail" > or something, but I didn't get one either. AFAIK your commit mail needs to be approved once. Best thing would be to ask root. > J.Pietschmann Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: documentation for the maintenance branch
Joerg, Joerg Pietschmann wrote: > "Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Obviously there is a need for some documention with normal releases. We >>don't need the design docs in the user releases, but all of the >>operational material, including the FAQs, is necessary. >> >>If we were to do source and compiled releases, the xml-docs could go >>into the source release, for generation by the user. Vice versa, the >>generated html (and pdf docs?) > > +1 on omitting the design doc completely in bin distributions. > Should probably omit skin source and xsl too. > I'm not sure about PDF, apparently there are not much requests > for this format. I think html is more generally useful for user support documentation. It would be much, much preferable to keep html and exclude PDF than the reverse. > What's larger: > - PDF > - xdocs + *2document.xsl + document2fo + build mechanism for building PDF > (includes ant.jar?) > - xdocs + full xsl + build mechanism for building PDF > This may need some explanation: We have documents using a generic > document.dtd and some documents liks FAQs which have to be > transformed into document.dtd xdocs before the final skin > document2html.xsl can be applied. When using ant for building, > this requires either temporary files (current solution) or a > custom task for the transformation pipelines (or Cocoon CLI) > Is this xsl part of Forrest, or something you have done? > >>need to be included in binary releases >>(with the proviso above, that the design docs are not needed.) It looks >>as though reworking is needed in the build.xml to accommodate these >>distinctions. How does that sound? > > > That's exactly what I'm currently doing, the HTML and the > intermediate document-DTD files are produced in the build > directory. Unfortunately, as I already noted, it's an > all-or-nothing thing unless you are comfortable with broken > doc builds for some time. > If this is ok, I can commit the first half tomorrow... I think we can live with it. (quietly... a working branch is very handy for this sort of thing...) Peter -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://powerup.com.au/~pbwest "Lord, to whom shall we go?" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: documentation for the maintenance branch
On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 14:39, Joerg Pietschmann wrote: > +1 on omitting the design doc completely in bin distributions. > Should probably omit skin source and xsl too. +1 also. > I'm not sure about PDF, apparently there are not much requests > for this format. > What's larger: > - PDF > - xdocs + *2document.xsl + document2fo + build mechanism for building PDF > (includes ant.jar?) > - xdocs + full xsl + build mechanism for building PDF > This may need some explanation: We have documents using a generic > document.dtd and some documents liks FAQs which have to be > transformed into document.dtd xdocs before the final skin > document2html.xsl can be applied. When using ant for building, > this requires either temporary files (current solution) or a > custom task for the transformation pipelines (or Cocoon CLI) Isn't this the whole idea of forrest. We simply write our docs. Forrest supplies the skin and sitemap and we run the Cocoon using "java" ant task. eg. in forrest they do this: ... args and classpath ... The hardest part is copying all the right files across. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: documentation for the maintenance branch
"Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Obviously there is a need for some documention with normal releases. We > don't need the design docs in the user releases, but all of the > operational material, including the FAQs, is necessary. > > If we were to do source and compiled releases, the xml-docs could go > into the source release, for generation by the user. Vice versa, the > generated html (and pdf docs?) +1 on omitting the design doc completely in bin distributions. Should probably omit skin source and xsl too. I'm not sure about PDF, apparently there are not much requests for this format. What's larger: - PDF - xdocs + *2document.xsl + document2fo + build mechanism for building PDF (includes ant.jar?) - xdocs + full xsl + build mechanism for building PDF This may need some explanation: We have documents using a generic document.dtd and some documents liks FAQs which have to be transformed into document.dtd xdocs before the final skin document2html.xsl can be applied. When using ant for building, this requires either temporary files (current solution) or a custom task for the transformation pipelines (or Cocoon CLI) > need to be included in binary releases > (with the proviso above, that the design docs are not needed.) It looks > as though reworking is needed in the build.xml to accommodate these > distinctions. How does that sound? That's exactly what I'm currently doing, the HTML and the intermediate document-DTD files are produced in the build directory. Unfortunately, as I already noted, it's an all-or-nothing thing unless you are comfortable with broken doc builds for some time. If this is ok, I can commit the first half tomorrow... J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: documentation for the maintenance branch
Fopdevs, Obviously there is a need for some documention with normal releases. We don't need the design docs in the user releases, but all of the operational material, including the FAQs, is necessary. If we were to do source and compiled releases, the xml-docs could go into the source release, for generation by the user. Vice versa, the generated html (and pdf docs?) need to be included in binary releases (with the proviso above, that the design docs are not needed.) It looks as though reworking is needed in the build.xml to accommodate these distinctions. How does that sound? Peter Christian Geisert wrote: > Hi, > > The documentation is maintained only in the main branch (does > everybody know this?) > > For the RC I just copied the docs from the main branch and > created the archives manually. For the final release I wanted > to have everything in one place (merge docs from trunk into > maintenance branch) but the problem is that stylebook needs > xerces1 which has been replaced with xerces2. > The question is if we should bring xerces1 back or just copy > the docs over (and tag the main branch with fop-0_20_4-doc) > for the release? > > As Keiron already suggested (I had the same thoughts) I think > we should remove xml-docs (and design) from bin distribution. > I'm not sure about removing html-docs from the src distribution. > > Should we remove the docs completly from the maintenance branch? > > PDF generation of the documentation seems to be broken. > > What is the status of the new FAQ? > > Christian > -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://powerup.com.au/~pbwest "Lord, to whom shall we go?" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: documentation for the maintenance branch
Jeremias Maerki wrote: > We're not really in a hurry, are we? I thought we are... The problem is that DTD and XSL of all documents has to be in sync, a partial commit breaks things :( > If it makes life simpler: +1. The only question arises when we're coming > to the point when we're starting with dev releases of the redesign. > We need different docs for each, right? We should factor out a common set. > I still don't get Jörg's CVS notifications. What can we do to get them > working? I'd really appreciate to know what's going on in CVS. The last checkin showed a "generate commit notification mail" or something, but I didn't get one either. J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
