You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com> on 2013/02/06 12:29:16 UTC
Re: documentation!???
Hi,
Since XCG website repository includes now all XCG sub-projects, there
should be a Jira entry for that.
In the same way, the doc management page should be moved to XCG general
website; WDYT?
2013/2/5 Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>
> I'll investigate the ANT stuff.
>
> As for including the docs in the dist, I don't believe there's an option
> at present. I'll investigate that as well.
>
> Clay
>
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>
> ok; how about the question about future releases? until now, batik,
> xgc-commons, and fop could be released with source artifacts that contained
> document sources; but now, it doesn't seem like that is possible, or at
> least the "dist-src" build targets do not go out to collect the new
> documentation sources and copy them into the generated source artifact;
>
> while you are at it, the old "publish.xml" ant files seem to be obsolete
> as well; are there any other ant updates needed to rid us of obsolete doc
> work flow?
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Glenn,
>>
>> The documentation exists solely in the ASF CMS, and so
>> fop/src/documentation is obsolete. We purposely did not delete the
>> src/documentation path until we were completely sure we weren't going back.
>> I suppose we're there…
>>
>> I'm happy to nuke ye olde documentation Forrest-based 'xdoc' directories.
>>
>> After I do that, I'll update the Document Management page with updated
>> instructions:
>>
>> http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/dev/doc.html
>>
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>>
>> where do we edit documentation now? is fop/src/documentation now
>> obsolete? if so, then why is it still in the tree? how will we do releases
>> and still include documentation if it lives in another tree?
>>
>>
>>
>
--
pascal
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IIRC, CMS migration was an Apache requirement.
> So, I don't think that undoing that is possible.
>
I wasn't suggesting backing out of CMS.
> By the way, we can start a new discussion on how to separate website
> Vs product documentation, the latter coming back to product project.
>
This is my concern, that the move to CMS has had the undesirable side
effects of:
(1) moving per-project documentation sources out of the former project
related repositories;
(2) combining multiple per-project documentation sources into one
repository;
I view both of these as undesirable side effects.
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
Thanks Glenn
On 07/02/2013 16:12, Glenn Adams wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Chris Bowditch
> <bo...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I agree with Glenn's concerns. However as Pascal pointed out we were
>> forced by the Apache board to move to their new website infrastructure.
>> Clay researched that and came up with the current solution which works well
>> for the website, but means the releases don't include documentation.
>>
>> In my mind that is a shame, but I don't know what the solution is. Someone
>> would need to develop a way to copy the documentation for the project being
>> built from the new location in SVN into the release artifacts at build
>> time. I suggest we log a Jira for that so this isn't forgotten.
>>
>>
> I've created two new JIRA tasks for this (for at least handling the FOP
> part... the same should apply to Batik and XGC). Previously, doc sources
> lived in separate per-project repos and were copied by the publish.xml
> process into the deployment repository. In the new arrangement, the CMS
> repository is being used both as a source and deployment repo, which I
> believe is undesirable. We need to move the markdown sources back into the
> per-project repos and then invoke a new publish process that deploys them
> to the deployment repository in a manner similar to the former pre-CMS
> process.
>
> I've assigned the new JIRA tasks to Clay.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Vincent Hennebert <vh...@gmail.com>.
On 11/02/13 09:10, Pascal Sancho wrote:
> Hi,
>
> IMHO, mixing website and FOP doc doesn't help. Look at BATIK javadoc:
> with the current process, there is no chance to manage it correctly.
> If website and various docs were in separate processes, we could
> attach easily docs to the appropriate project.
> I agree with GA's old remark: FOP doc should remain in a xml form to
> have a chance to get it in either a web form, or a pdf form.
> On the other side, Website in its current form is very easy to maintain.
> So, a better solution should be:
> - FOP doc in FOP project, if possible in a form that can be easily
> transformed to either html, or pdf (docbook?)
> - FOP website in markdown format (IMO, repository location has no
> importance; can be either in XGC CMS or FOP specific CMS
> - FOP javadoc, in the same way as FOP doc.
>
> WDYT?
This is actually what other projects seem to be doing (keeping the
general information on one side, and the software documentation on
another). As discussions were occurring on the infra@ mailing list about
the CMS, it became apparent to me that we didn’t have to use the CMS for
the documentation. In fact, we didn’t have to use the CMS at all.
What we did have to do is to use svnpubsub to publish our website,
either through the CMS or by other means. Some information can be found
in [1], although I couldn’t find precise instructions about how to use
svnpubsub outside the CMS. But it seems to me that all we could have
done is slightly alter the publish part of the Forrest-based website
generation, in order to commit to an svnpubsub-managed repository
instead of the one on people.apache.org.
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/project-site.html
All that said, I certainly don’t regret our move from Forrest which
I never really mastered and never felt inclined either to learn
properly.
But if we want to have the documentation back together with the source
code, the way to go is to use svnpubsub to update the corresponding
parts of the website (infra won’t accept to install a custom svn commit
hook I believe).
We can keep it in the Markdown format, or we could convert it back to
some flavour of xml. DocBook was mentioned some time ago and would
probably be better supported than xdoc.
Or, we can leave things as they are, and when we create a release, we
can somehow pull the relevant tab from the website and pack it with the
source code. This would be a slightly altered version of option #1
mentioned earlier.
Keeping the doc in the CMS (option #1) has the advantage that we have
a uniform way to write documentation, and we can use the CMS gui.
Keeping the doc with the source (option #2) has the advantage of
requiring only 1 patch for a change, instead of two separate ones, one
for the source and one for the documentation.
> 2013/2/11 Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>:
>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> I've eradicated Forrest-based documentation from FOP. Now we need to
>>>> ensure that FOP builds properly.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I also need to do the same for Batik and XML Graphics Commons, but I
>>>> thought I'd wait until other folks had a chance to ensure I didn't munge
>>>> stuff!
>>>>
>>>> As for getting documentation into their respective project sources, I'm
>>>> thinking of one of the following:
>>>>
>>>> 1. svn hook to copy the MarkDown docs *to* their respective location
>>>> *from* the current 'ASF-CMS' (vice ;-)
>>>> 2. svn hook to copy the MarkDown docs *to* the current 'ASF-CMS' *from*
>>>> their respective location (versa ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I suspect the desired approach would be #2, but the ASF-CMS system is
>>>> geared toward editing the docs in ASF-CMS, which would make #1 easier.
>>>>
>>>> Another possibility would be to somehow create a system to copy the
>>>> rendered HTML output to the repo…
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts? Preferences?
>>>>
>>>
>>> My preference is #2, i.e., to keep the doc sources in the same repositories
>>> as their non-doc sources.
>>
>> Figures that would be the preference… ;-)
>>
>> I suspect Option #1 be easiest to maintain (and implement). I imagine it working this way:
>>
>> a. Edit the files/pages directly from within the CMS as is currently the case
>> * no change to current web site/documentation editing on the ASF-CMS
>> b. commit the change to see it in STAGING
>> * an SVN hook would need to be created, which copies site changes to the appropriate local repository (FOP, Batik or Commons)
>> c. Check your changes on Staging
>> d. publish the site to see the changes on PRODUCTION
>>
>> Migrating to Option #2 would mean modifying how ASF-CMS works, and we wouldn't be able to edit using the ASF-CMS user-interface.
>>
>>> I have to wonder what other projects are doing
>>> about this?
>>
>> From what I can tell, most of the others are either Top-Level Projects (TLPs like Apache XML Project, which hosts retired projects Crimson & Xindice and which gave birth to XML Graphics, and from whence Xerces & Xalan were born), or they're still using a combination of Forrest and/or Maven[2] (e.g., Apache Web Services Project).
>>
>> [1] Apache XML Project
>> http://xml.apache.org
>>
>> [2]
>> http://ws.apache.org
Vincent
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
IMHO, mixing website and FOP doc doesn't help. Look at BATIK javadoc:
with the current process, there is no chance to manage it correctly.
If website and various docs were in separate processes, we could
attach easily docs to the appropriate project.
I agree with GA's old remark: FOP doc should remain in a xml form to
have a chance to get it in either a web form, or a pdf form.
On the other side, Website in its current form is very easy to maintain.
So, a better solution should be:
- FOP doc in FOP project, if possible in a form that can be easily
transformed to either html, or pdf (docbook?)
- FOP website in markdown format (IMO, repository location has no
importance; can be either in XGC CMS or FOP specific CMS
- FOP javadoc, in the same way as FOP doc.
WDYT?
2013/2/11 Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>:
> On Feb 10, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I've eradicated Forrest-based documentation from FOP. Now we need to
>>> ensure that FOP builds properly.
>>>
>>> BTW, I also need to do the same for Batik and XML Graphics Commons, but I
>>> thought I'd wait until other folks had a chance to ensure I didn't munge
>>> stuff!
>>>
>>> As for getting documentation into their respective project sources, I'm
>>> thinking of one of the following:
>>>
>>> 1. svn hook to copy the MarkDown docs *to* their respective location
>>> *from* the current 'ASF-CMS' (vice ;-)
>>> 2. svn hook to copy the MarkDown docs *to* the current 'ASF-CMS' *from*
>>> their respective location (versa ;-)
>>>
>>> I suspect the desired approach would be #2, but the ASF-CMS system is
>>> geared toward editing the docs in ASF-CMS, which would make #1 easier.
>>>
>>> Another possibility would be to somehow create a system to copy the
>>> rendered HTML output to the repo…
>>>
>>> Thoughts? Preferences?
>>>
>>
>> My preference is #2, i.e., to keep the doc sources in the same repositories
>> as their non-doc sources.
>
> Figures that would be the preference… ;-)
>
> I suspect Option #1 be easiest to maintain (and implement). I imagine it working this way:
>
> a. Edit the files/pages directly from within the CMS as is currently the case
> * no change to current web site/documentation editing on the ASF-CMS
> b. commit the change to see it in STAGING
> * an SVN hook would need to be created, which copies site changes to the appropriate local repository (FOP, Batik or Commons)
> c. Check your changes on Staging
> d. publish the site to see the changes on PRODUCTION
>
> Migrating to Option #2 would mean modifying how ASF-CMS works, and we wouldn't be able to edit using the ASF-CMS user-interface.
>
>> I have to wonder what other projects are doing
>> about this?
>
> From what I can tell, most of the others are either Top-Level Projects (TLPs like Apache XML Project, which hosts retired projects Crimson & Xindice and which gave birth to XML Graphics, and from whence Xerces & Xalan were born), or they're still using a combination of Forrest and/or Maven[2] (e.g., Apache Web Services Project).
>
> [1] Apache XML Project
> http://xml.apache.org
>
> [2]
> http://ws.apache.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
--
pascal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
On Feb 10, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I've eradicated Forrest-based documentation from FOP. Now we need to
>> ensure that FOP builds properly.
>>
>> BTW, I also need to do the same for Batik and XML Graphics Commons, but I
>> thought I'd wait until other folks had a chance to ensure I didn't munge
>> stuff!
>>
>> As for getting documentation into their respective project sources, I'm
>> thinking of one of the following:
>>
>> 1. svn hook to copy the MarkDown docs *to* their respective location
>> *from* the current 'ASF-CMS' (vice ;-)
>> 2. svn hook to copy the MarkDown docs *to* the current 'ASF-CMS' *from*
>> their respective location (versa ;-)
>>
>> I suspect the desired approach would be #2, but the ASF-CMS system is
>> geared toward editing the docs in ASF-CMS, which would make #1 easier.
>>
>> Another possibility would be to somehow create a system to copy the
>> rendered HTML output to the repo…
>>
>> Thoughts? Preferences?
>>
>
> My preference is #2, i.e., to keep the doc sources in the same repositories
> as their non-doc sources.
Figures that would be the preference… ;-)
I suspect Option #1 be easiest to maintain (and implement). I imagine it working this way:
a. Edit the files/pages directly from within the CMS as is currently the case
* no change to current web site/documentation editing on the ASF-CMS
b. commit the change to see it in STAGING
* an SVN hook would need to be created, which copies site changes to the appropriate local repository (FOP, Batik or Commons)
c. Check your changes on Staging
d. publish the site to see the changes on PRODUCTION
Migrating to Option #2 would mean modifying how ASF-CMS works, and we wouldn't be able to edit using the ASF-CMS user-interface.
> I have to wonder what other projects are doing
> about this?
From what I can tell, most of the others are either Top-Level Projects (TLPs like Apache XML Project, which hosts retired projects Crimson & Xindice and which gave birth to XML Graphics, and from whence Xerces & Xalan were born), or they're still using a combination of Forrest and/or Maven[2] (e.g., Apache Web Services Project).
[1] Apache XML Project
http://xml.apache.org
[2]
http://ws.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've eradicated Forrest-based documentation from FOP. Now we need to
> ensure that FOP builds properly.
>
> BTW, I also need to do the same for Batik and XML Graphics Commons, but I
> thought I'd wait until other folks had a chance to ensure I didn't munge
> stuff!
>
> As for getting documentation into their respective project sources, I'm
> thinking of one of the following:
>
> 1. svn hook to copy the MarkDown docs *to* their respective location
> *from* the current 'ASF-CMS' (vice ;-)
> 2. svn hook to copy the MarkDown docs *to* the current 'ASF-CMS' *from*
> their respective location (versa ;-)
>
> I suspect the desired approach would be #2, but the ASF-CMS system is
> geared toward editing the docs in ASF-CMS, which would make #1 easier.
>
> Another possibility would be to somehow create a system to copy the
> rendered HTML output to the repo…
>
> Thoughts? Preferences?
>
My preference is #2, i.e., to keep the doc sources in the same repositories
as their non-doc sources. I have to wonder what other projects are doing
about this?
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
Hi folks,
I've eradicated Forrest-based documentation from FOP. Now we need to ensure that FOP builds properly.
BTW, I also need to do the same for Batik and XML Graphics Commons, but I thought I'd wait until other folks had a chance to ensure I didn't munge stuff!
As for getting documentation into their respective project sources, I'm thinking of one of the following:
1. svn hook to copy the MarkDown docs *to* their respective location *from* the current 'ASF-CMS' (vice ;-)
2. svn hook to copy the MarkDown docs *to* the current 'ASF-CMS' *from* their respective location (versa ;-)
I suspect the desired approach would be #2, but the ASF-CMS system is geared toward editing the docs in ASF-CMS, which would make #1 easier.
Another possibility would be to somehow create a system to copy the rendered HTML output to the repo…
Thoughts? Preferences?
Clay
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Chris Bowditch
<bo...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I agree with Glenn's concerns. However as Pascal pointed out we were
> forced by the Apache board to move to their new website infrastructure.
> Clay researched that and came up with the current solution which works well
> for the website, but means the releases don't include documentation.
>
> In my mind that is a shame, but I don't know what the solution is. Someone
> would need to develop a way to copy the documentation for the project being
> built from the new location in SVN into the release artifacts at build
> time. I suggest we log a Jira for that so this isn't forgotten.
>
>
I've created two new JIRA tasks for this (for at least handling the FOP
part... the same should apply to Batik and XGC). Previously, doc sources
lived in separate per-project repos and were copied by the publish.xml
process into the deployment repository. In the new arrangement, the CMS
repository is being used both as a source and deployment repo, which I
believe is undesirable. We need to move the markdown sources back into the
per-project repos and then invoke a new publish process that deploys them
to the deployment repository in a manner similar to the former pre-CMS
process.
I've assigned the new JIRA tasks to Clay.
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
Hi folks,
On Feb 7, 2013, at 2:43 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I agree with Glenn's concerns. However as Pascal pointed out we were forced by the Apache board to move to their new website infrastructure. Clay researched that and came up with the current solution which works well for the website, but means the releases don't include documentation.
>> 2013/2/6 Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>:
>>> Can these be migrated back into their own original repositories? I don't
>>> recall a discussion of the present organization when we started the move to
>>> CMS.
Well before the Forrest=>ASF CMS migration, a discussion arose about how to deal with the Documentation's inability to generate OFFLINE capabilities, and we resolved that the migration needed to proceed irrespective of a solution to the inability to generate OFFLINE documentation.
> In my mind that is a shame, but I don't know what the solution is. Someone would need to develop a way to copy the documentation for the project being built from the new location in SVN into the release artifacts at build time. I suggest we log a Jira for that so this isn't forgotten.
Yes… It's a definite shame.
I noticed that the 'Add local mode option to CMS' JIRA Issue might have offer some help:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4387
It'll take some development time. I would like to look into it. I haven't played too much with the buildbot (http://ci.apache.org/buildbot.html). Perhaps we could use `wget -m` (possibly w/ a .wgetrc containing 'robots=off') to grab the site?
Create OFFLINE export of CMS output (PDF? HTML?) possibly using buildbot
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5840
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
Warm regards,
Clay
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
Hi All,
I agree with Glenn's concerns. However as Pascal pointed out we were
forced by the Apache board to move to their new website infrastructure.
Clay researched that and came up with the current solution which works
well for the website, but means the releases don't include documentation.
In my mind that is a shame, but I don't know what the solution is.
Someone would need to develop a way to copy the documentation for the
project being built from the new location in SVN into the release
artifacts at build time. I suggest we log a Jira for that so this isn't
forgotten.
Thanks,
Chris
On 07/02/2013 08:19, Pascal Sancho wrote:
> Hi,
>
> IIRC, CMS migration was an Apache requirement.
> So, I don't think that undoing that is possible.
> By the way, we can start a new discussion on how to separate website
> Vs product documentation, the latter coming back to product project.
>
> 2013/2/6 Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>:
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 2013/2/6 Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Since XCG website repository includes now all XCG sub-projects, there
>>>>> should be a Jira entry for that.
>>>>>
>>>> By "include all" do you mean "includes all documentation for XCG
>>>> sub-projects"?
>>> Yes, this is a fact. The whole XCG CMS, with sub-projects parts, is
>>> now in its own SVN project, outside XCG projects sources.
>>>
>> Can these be migrated back into their own original repositories? I don't
>> recall a discussion of the present organization when we started the move to
>> CMS.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
IIRC, CMS migration was an Apache requirement.
So, I don't think that undoing that is possible.
By the way, we can start a new discussion on how to separate website
Vs product documentation, the latter coming back to product project.
2013/2/6 Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2013/2/6 Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>:
>> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Since XCG website repository includes now all XCG sub-projects, there
>> >> should be a Jira entry for that.
>> >>
>> >
>> > By "include all" do you mean "includes all documentation for XCG
>> > sub-projects"?
>>
>> Yes, this is a fact. The whole XCG CMS, with sub-projects parts, is
>> now in its own SVN project, outside XCG projects sources.
>>
>
> Can these be migrated back into their own original repositories? I don't
> recall a discussion of the present organization when we started the move to
> CMS.
--
pascal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2013/2/6 Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>:
> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Since XCG website repository includes now all XCG sub-projects, there
> >> should be a Jira entry for that.
> >>
> >
> > By "include all" do you mean "includes all documentation for XCG
> > sub-projects"?
>
> Yes, this is a fact. The whole XCG CMS, with sub-projects parts, is
> now in its own SVN project, outside XCG projects sources.
>
Can these be migrated back into their own original repositories? I don't
recall a discussion of the present organization when we started the move to
CMS.
>
> > I'm personally not comfortable with this arrangement, because it
> > complicates releases and doesn't properly separate distinct project
> assets.
>
> I'm not sure; the whole release process can be now divided into 2
> distinct stages:
> 1/ make the release (decide, build, push, test)
> 2/ update website/doc and announce when release is ready
>
> But I agree that doc should come with the product then added to website.
> World is not perfect.
>
Let's fix it then.
>
> >> In the same way, the doc management page should be moved to XCG general
> >> website; WDYT?
> >>
> >> 2013/2/5 Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >>> I'll investigate the ANT stuff.
> >>>
> >>> As for including the docs in the dist, I don't believe there's an
> option
> >>> at present. I'll investigate that as well.
> >>>
> >>> Clay
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ok; how about the question about future releases? until now, batik,
> >>> xgc-commons, and fop could be released with source artifacts that
> contained
> >>> document sources; but now, it doesn't seem like that is possible, or at
> >>> least the "dist-src" build targets do not go out to collect the new
> >>> documentation sources and copy them into the generated source artifact;
> >>>
> >>> while you are at it, the old "publish.xml" ant files seem to be
> obsolete
> >>> as well; are there any other ant updates needed to rid us of obsolete
> doc
> >>> work flow?
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Clay Leeds <the.webmaestro@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Glenn,
> >>>>
> >>>> The documentation exists solely in the ASF CMS, and so
> >>>> fop/src/documentation is obsolete. We purposely did not delete the
> >>>> src/documentation path until we were completely sure we weren't going
> back.
> >>>> I suppose we're there…
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm happy to nuke ye olde documentation Forrest-based 'xdoc'
> directories.
> >>>>
> >>>> After I do that, I'll update the Document Management page with updated
> >>>> instructions:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/dev/doc.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> where do we edit documentation now? is fop/src/documentation now
> >>>> obsolete? if so, then why is it still in the tree? how will we do
> releases
> >>>> and still include documentation if it lives in another tree?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> pascal
>
>
>
> --
> pascal
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
2013/2/6 Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since XCG website repository includes now all XCG sub-projects, there
>> should be a Jira entry for that.
>>
>
> By "include all" do you mean "includes all documentation for XCG
> sub-projects"?
Yes, this is a fact. The whole XCG CMS, with sub-projects parts, is
now in its own SVN project, outside XCG projects sources.
> I'm personally not comfortable with this arrangement, because it
> complicates releases and doesn't properly separate distinct project assets.
I'm not sure; the whole release process can be now divided into 2
distinct stages:
1/ make the release (decide, build, push, test)
2/ update website/doc and announce when release is ready
But I agree that doc should come with the product then added to website.
World is not perfect.
>> In the same way, the doc management page should be moved to XCG general
>> website; WDYT?
>>
>> 2013/2/5 Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> I'll investigate the ANT stuff.
>>>
>>> As for including the docs in the dist, I don't believe there's an option
>>> at present. I'll investigate that as well.
>>>
>>> Clay
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ok; how about the question about future releases? until now, batik,
>>> xgc-commons, and fop could be released with source artifacts that contained
>>> document sources; but now, it doesn't seem like that is possible, or at
>>> least the "dist-src" build targets do not go out to collect the new
>>> documentation sources and copy them into the generated source artifact;
>>>
>>> while you are at it, the old "publish.xml" ant files seem to be obsolete
>>> as well; are there any other ant updates needed to rid us of obsolete doc
>>> work flow?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Glenn,
>>>>
>>>> The documentation exists solely in the ASF CMS, and so
>>>> fop/src/documentation is obsolete. We purposely did not delete the
>>>> src/documentation path until we were completely sure we weren't going back.
>>>> I suppose we're there…
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy to nuke ye olde documentation Forrest-based 'xdoc' directories.
>>>>
>>>> After I do that, I'll update the Document Management page with updated
>>>> instructions:
>>>>
>>>> http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/dev/doc.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> where do we edit documentation now? is fop/src/documentation now
>>>> obsolete? if so, then why is it still in the tree? how will we do releases
>>>> and still include documentation if it lives in another tree?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> pascal
--
pascal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since XCG website repository includes now all XCG sub-projects, there
> should be a Jira entry for that.
>
By "include all" do you mean "includes all documentation for XCG
sub-projects"?
I'm personally not comfortable with this arrangement, because it
complicates releases and doesn't properly separate distinct project assets.
>
> In the same way, the doc management page should be moved to XCG general
> website; WDYT?
>
> 2013/2/5 Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>
>
>> I'll investigate the ANT stuff.
>>
>> As for including the docs in the dist, I don't believe there's an option
>> at present. I'll investigate that as well.
>>
>> Clay
>>
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>>
>> ok; how about the question about future releases? until now, batik,
>> xgc-commons, and fop could be released with source artifacts that contained
>> document sources; but now, it doesn't seem like that is possible, or at
>> least the "dist-src" build targets do not go out to collect the new
>> documentation sources and copy them into the generated source artifact;
>>
>> while you are at it, the old "publish.xml" ant files seem to be obsolete
>> as well; are there any other ant updates needed to rid us of obsolete doc
>> work flow?
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Glenn,
>>>
>>> The documentation exists solely in the ASF CMS, and so
>>> fop/src/documentation is obsolete. We purposely did not delete the
>>> src/documentation path until we were completely sure we weren't going back.
>>> I suppose we're there…
>>>
>>> I'm happy to nuke ye olde documentation Forrest-based 'xdoc' directories.
>>>
>>> After I do that, I'll update the Document Management page with updated
>>> instructions:
>>>
>>> http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/dev/doc.html
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> where do we edit documentation now? is fop/src/documentation now
>>> obsolete? if so, then why is it still in the tree? how will we do releases
>>> and still include documentation if it lives in another tree?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> pascal
Re: documentation!???
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since XCG website repository includes now all XCG sub-projects, there
> should be a Jira entry for that.
>
By "include all" do you mean "includes all documentation for XCG
sub-projects"?
I'm personally not comfortable with this arrangement, because it
complicates releases and doesn't properly separate distinct project assets.
>
> In the same way, the doc management page should be moved to XCG general
> website; WDYT?
>
> 2013/2/5 Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>
>
>> I'll investigate the ANT stuff.
>>
>> As for including the docs in the dist, I don't believe there's an option
>> at present. I'll investigate that as well.
>>
>> Clay
>>
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>>
>> ok; how about the question about future releases? until now, batik,
>> xgc-commons, and fop could be released with source artifacts that contained
>> document sources; but now, it doesn't seem like that is possible, or at
>> least the "dist-src" build targets do not go out to collect the new
>> documentation sources and copy them into the generated source artifact;
>>
>> while you are at it, the old "publish.xml" ant files seem to be obsolete
>> as well; are there any other ant updates needed to rid us of obsolete doc
>> work flow?
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Glenn,
>>>
>>> The documentation exists solely in the ASF CMS, and so
>>> fop/src/documentation is obsolete. We purposely did not delete the
>>> src/documentation path until we were completely sure we weren't going back.
>>> I suppose we're there…
>>>
>>> I'm happy to nuke ye olde documentation Forrest-based 'xdoc' directories.
>>>
>>> After I do that, I'll update the Document Management page with updated
>>> instructions:
>>>
>>> http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/dev/doc.html
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> where do we edit documentation now? is fop/src/documentation now
>>> obsolete? if so, then why is it still in the tree? how will we do releases
>>> and still include documentation if it lives in another tree?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> pascal