Graham Dumpleton schrieb: > Any chance the TG team would adopt my documentation on TG 1.1 > integration with mod_wsgi into their own documentation and then keep > it up to date with any changes in your package. I would then just > refer to your documentation.
We can put the docs pertaining to TG1 into our wiki, sure. If there is anything relating to TG2 it should go into the Sphinx docs. I believe Michael Pedersen is the right contact for this. I suggest, you just create a page in the rough docs section and I will bring it into the right form. You'll need a wiki account for this, but if this is not too much hassle for you, you can send my the doc and I'll put it on the wiki. ReST format would be much preferred :) I suggest using this as the place to put the page: http://docs.turbogears.org/1.1/RoughDocs/DeployModWSGI You should also open a ticket in our track, so we don't forget this: http://docs.turbogears.org/DocHelp#document-submission-procedure As I said, I do not use this setup myself very much, so I wouldn't be the right person to maintain such a document. But I am sure there are other who do and together we can try to keep the doc up to date. > I have given up trying to track all the different packages and sub > variants so any documentation on mod_wsgi site will likely just get > more and more out of date and thus wrong as a result. I have managed > to get a few other packages to do this and so just have references for > them instead now. Yes, I think that's the only sensible approach. But is there an easy way for us to track changes in mod_wsgi that would affect our suggested setup? Chris --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
