You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> on 2005/10/19 19:27:49 UTC
[Vote] Packaging of docs
Ok, I think it's safer to just vote on this as well - again the majority
wins. We already "agreed" on using just HTML for the docs.
Please cast your votes for:
a) Include the docs in the distribution
b) Provide a separate docs package to download
The docs will be the ones generated by forrest.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 19.10.2005 19:27, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> b) Provide a separate docs package to download
+1
Jörg
Re: Future publishing of docs (was Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
hepabolu wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> In this way people only see what either we want them to see, or they
>> choose to see. This is akin to users only having access to the bundled
>> docs in a release, but devs having access to the development docs in SVN.
>
>
> True, but if we point the users to the cocoon.zones site the traffic
> there might accumulate beyond the capacity of the server. This server
> also has less priority in the disaster schemes of the infrastructure
> people.
> Those are the most important arguments to designate Daisy on
> cocoon.zones as a staging server, rather than a place where people can
> find the most up to date documentation (based on their ACL).
Good point. So it wasn't such a great idea then. :-)
Ross
Re: Future publishing of docs (was Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs)
Posted by hepabolu <he...@gmail.com>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> In this way people only see what either we want them to see, or they
> choose to see. This is akin to users only having access to the bundled
> docs in a release, but devs having access to the development docs in SVN.
True, but if we point the users to the cocoon.zones site the traffic
there might accumulate beyond the capacity of the server. This server
also has less priority in the disaster schemes of the infrastructure people.
Those are the most important arguments to designate Daisy on
cocoon.zones as a staging server, rather than a place where people can
find the most up to date documentation (based on their ACL).
Bye, Helma
Future publishing of docs (was Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
hepabolu wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
...
>
>> For __future__ releases, we will have a third option:
>> c) include the forrest block and cocoon docs configuration files
>
>
> -1 for this, although it should be moved to another thread.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to give "all" users access to the staging
> server. If that was possible we could have simple decided that the
> current Daisy configuration in the zones is are new, latest and greatest
> documentation source where everyone should go and look for the most
> recent, most uptodate documentation.
I did not explain myself very clearly.
Daisy has two stages of publishing, draft and published. Anyone
nominated as a doc-author can edit documents, but there edits are put
into a draft document. Only doc-editors can publish the documents.
There is also a third mechanism for version control in 1.3 (which we now
use). That is branches. We could create branches for the released
version of Cocoon and another for the development version.
Access to each of these types of document is controlled by the ACL
within Daisy. Therefore the "documentation block" will retrieve only the
the types of documents that people have access to see, for example:
users - published docs from a released version
user/editors - draft docs from a released version
devs - published docs from the dev version
dev/editors - draft docs from the dev version
etc.
In this way people only see what either we want them to see, or they
choose to see. This is akin to users only having access to the bundled
docs in a release, but devs having access to the development docs in SVN.
Ross
Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs
Posted by hepabolu <he...@gmail.com>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
>> Please cast your votes for:
>> a) Include the docs in the distribution
>> b) Provide a separate docs package to download
+1 for b too.
> For __future__ releases, we will have a third option:
> c) include the forrest block and cocoon docs configuration files
-1 for this, although it should be moved to another thread.
I don't think it's a good idea to give "all" users access to the staging
server. If that was possible we could have simple decided that the
current Daisy configuration in the zones is are new, latest and greatest
documentation source where everyone should go and look for the most
recent, most uptodate documentation.
Bye, Helma
Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Ok, I think it's safer to just vote on this as well - again the majority
> wins. We already "agreed" on using just HTML for the docs.
>
> Please cast your votes for:
>
> a) Include the docs in the distribution
>
> b) Provide a separate docs package to download
+1 for b)
For __future__ releases, we will have a third option:
c) include the forrest block and cocoon docs configuration files
The config consists of just a handful of text files.
Building the docs locally will require a reasonably fast connection
since it needs to retrieve the sources individually from the daisy repo,
but the amount of bandwidth used will be less than downloading in the
complete docs.
Also it will work well when running in dynamic mode with a net
connection. Only the pages require will be retreived, and will be pulled
from the published docs in Daisy (i.e. always up to date). It wlll be
able to utilise the search facilities of the Daisy repo.
Ross
Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs
Posted by Leszek Gawron <lg...@mobilebox.pl>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Ok, I think it's safer to just vote on this as well - again the majority
> wins. We already "agreed" on using just HTML for the docs.
>
> Please cast your votes for:
>
> a) Include the docs in the distribution
>
> b) Provide a separate docs package to download
+1 for b). I myself prefer pure binary download and documentation
consisting of online website + google.
--
Leszek Gawron lgawron@mobilebox.pl
IT Manager MobileBox sp. z o.o.
+48 (61) 855 06 67 http://www.mobilebox.pl
mobile: +48 (501) 720 812 fax: +48 (61) 853 29 65
Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs
Posted by Mark Lundquist <ml...@wrinkledog.com>.
On Oct 19, 2005, at 10:27 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> b) Provide a separate docs package to download
+1
Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs
Posted by Jorg Heymans <jh...@domek.be>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> b) Provide a separate docs package to download
+1
Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>Ok, I think it's safer to just vote on this as well - again the majority
>wins. We already "agreed" on using just HTML for the docs.
>
>Please cast your votes for:
>
>a) Include the docs in the distribution
>
>b) Provide a separate docs package to download
>
>The docs will be the ones generated by forrest.
>
>Carsten
>
>
>
b) +1
Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs
Posted by Tony Collen <co...@umn.edu>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Ok, I think it's safer to just vote on this as well - again the majority
> wins. We already "agreed" on using just HTML for the docs.
>
> Please cast your votes for:
>
> a) Include the docs in the distribution
-0, mostly because we're trying to slim down the core
>
> b) Provide a separate docs package to download
+1, see above
Tony
Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> b) Provide a separate docs package to download
+1
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le 19 oct. 05, à 19:27, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
> Ok, I think it's safer to just vote on this as well - again the
> majority
> wins. We already "agreed" on using just HTML for the docs.
>
> Please cast your votes for:
>
> a) Include the docs in the distribution
-0
> b) Provide a separate docs package to download
+1
-Bertrand
Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs
Posted by Bruno Dumon <br...@outerthought.org>.
On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 19:27 +0200, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Ok, I think it's safer to just vote on this as well - again the majority
> wins. We already "agreed" on using just HTML for the docs.
>
> Please cast your votes for:
>
> a) Include the docs in the distribution
>
> b) Provide a separate docs package to download
>
> The docs will be the ones generated by forrest.
+1 for b
--
Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
bruno@outerthought.org bruno@apache.org
Re: [Vote] Packaging of docs
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Ok, I think it's safer to just vote on this as well - again the majority
> wins. We already "agreed" on using just HTML for the docs.
>
> Please cast your votes for:
>
> a) Include the docs in the distribution
>
> b) Provide a separate docs package to download
>
> The docs will be the ones generated by forrest.
0 ... i don't care either way, as long as people
can somehow refer to docs while offline and integrate
with Cocoon Samples.
-David