You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@cocoon.apache.org by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch> on 2003/03/20 23:07:21 UTC
[proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
(cc to -docs for info, please discuss on -dev)
Recent activity on the cocoon-docs list suggests that the
Forrestization of our docs might be happening soon, and this raises
some issues due to the circular dependencies that this creates between
Cocoon and Forrest.
See [1] and [2].
Could we add a binary version of Forrest (including Cocoon binaries) to
our CVS repository so that everyone can generate the docs reliably from
the same version of Forrest, using it as a blackbox tool?
Until now Cocoon has been able to generate its own docs, but for other
projects this is not the case, they just use Forrest as a blackbox
binary tool.
I don't see any problem doing the same, and if we use Forrest anyway it
would be a big waste of time to keep maintaining the standalone
generation of our docs.
I think a separate CVS module ("cocoon-tools" ?) should be created for
this to avoid making the main CVS bigger, and the build scripts can
then reference the version of Forrest that is stored there using
relative paths.
Thoughts?
-Bertrand
[1]
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-docs&m=104819360605381&w=2
[2]
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-docs&m=104563976028968&w=2
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Torsten Curdt wrote, On 21/03/2003 14.03:
>> I would be -1 too. I don't think this has been proposed, right?
>
>
> So what does the subject mean than? ;)
:-DDD
Lately I don't even read them, discussions are so quick they easily go
off topic!
:-)))
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@dff.st>.
> I would be -1 too. I don't think this has been proposed, right?
So what does the subject mean than? ;)
<snip type="things that sound good"/>
> Putting the forrest distro in another CVS is just a waste.
yepp
--
Torsten
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 21/03/2003 13:57 Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> On 21/03/2003 13:53 Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>
>>> - get Forrest from CVS
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, get it from http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/xml/forrest/
>>
>> Do we really want bleeding edge?
>
>
> If possible, no.
> I was just trying to say that even in that case it's simple enough.
Ah - good. I was worried, thinking you were aiming at creating some
giant cross-build-gump-like dependency between Forrest and Cocoon so
that we were effectively eating our own dogfood but would end up in the
'cannot build docs, help!' syndrome again.
I'm doing the new version of our company's website with Forrest HEAD,
yet I'm willing to live on the bleeding edge - but I would not want to
see this pushed to Cocoon docs committers.
> Cheers!
Cheers, I'm glad we understood each other correctly.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Steven Noels wrote, On 21/03/2003 13.56:
> On 21/03/2003 13:53 Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> - get Forrest from CVS
>
>
> Nope, get it from http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/xml/forrest/
>
> Do we really want bleeding edge?
If possible, no.
I was just trying to say that even in that case it's simple enough.
Cheers!
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 21/03/2003 13:53 Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> - get Forrest from CVS
Nope, get it from http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/xml/forrest/
Do we really want bleeding edge?
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Le Vendredi, 21 mars 2003, à 14:00 Europe/Zurich, Nicola Ken Barozzi a
écrit :
> ...BTW, it would be easy to add to the skinconf a param that asks for
> a specific release, so we can be sure that the user gets notified if
> the expected release is different....
way to go IMHO - automate these checks to avoid surprises.
-Bertrand
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote, On 21/03/2003 13.57:
> Le Vendredi, 21 mars 2003, à 13:53 Europe/Zurich, Nicola Ken Barozzi a
> écrit :
>
>>
>> ...IMHO we just need to install Forrest. Simple as that...
>
> Might be too much to ask for our (yet mysterious and unknown) "doc
> committers"?
If it's too much, then it would be too much even to ask them to generate
the site!
Honestly, installing Forrest is really easy.
> More seriously, the problem is making sure everyone is using the same
> version of Forrest. Could work with CVS tags though.
>
>> ...Putting the forrest distro in another CVS is just a waste.
>
> Yes, but not that big a waste (just disk space) and will make it easier
> for people to make sure they are using the right version.
As Steven correctly says, let's use releases.
BTW, it would be easy to add to the skinconf a param that asks for a
specific release, so we can be sure that the user gets notified if the
expected release is different.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@dff.st>.
> More seriously, the problem is making sure everyone is using the same
> version of Forrest. Could work with CVS tags though.
Well, then let's go for a released version from the mirrors.
An ant script could grap and install it maybe?
--
Torsten
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Le Vendredi, 21 mars 2003, à 13:53 Europe/Zurich, Nicola Ken Barozzi a
écrit :
>
> ...IMHO we just need to install Forrest. Simple as that...
Might be too much to ask for our (yet mysterious and unknown) "doc
committers"?
More seriously, the problem is making sure everyone is using the same
version of Forrest. Could work with CVS tags though.
> ...Putting the forrest distro in another CVS is just a waste.
Yes, but not that big a waste (just disk space) and will make it easier
for people to make sure they are using the right version.
-Bertrand
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Torsten Curdt wrote, On 21/03/2003 13.44:
>>> version to generate the docs. As Steven(?) already pointed
>>
...
>
I revoke my +10 but keep my -1 for inclusion in the
> current cocoon-2.x repos.
I would be -1 too. I don't think this has been proposed, right?
> Maybe Andrew is right and it's really time for a cocoon-docs repo.
>
> What do you think, guys?
IMHO we just need to install Forrest. Simple as that.
- get Forrest from CVS
- cd xml-forrest
- build
- add build/dist/bin to the path
DONE!
To update Forrest:
- update from CVS
- cd xml-forrest
- build
Putting the forrest distro in another CVS is just a waste.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 21/03/2003 13:44 Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Maybe Andrew is right and it's really time for a cocoon-docs repo.
>
> What do you think, guys?
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=104555857924978&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=104549004016117&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-docs&m=104132395225119&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-docs&m=103484592529486&w=2
so +1, I guess ;-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Le Vendredi, 21 mars 2003, à 13:55 Europe/Zurich, Steven Noels a écrit :
> ...PLEASE let's use a released Forrest version!
why not if there is a release that works for our needs.
I haven't been following Forrest closely enough lately to tell.
-Bertrand
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 21/03/2003 13:52 Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> cocoon-docs:
> -documentatio, xdocs
> -stuff to auto-generate docs from the main cocoon repository
> (javadoc, litterate XSL, etc)
> -CVS tagged with version numbers when there is a Cocoon release
agreement varying from +0 to +100
> cocoon-tools:
> -binary Forrest used to generate the docs
> -used from cocoon-docs build scripts by way of relative paths
-1: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/xml/forrest/
PLEASE let's use a released Forrest version!
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Andrew Savory <an...@luminas.co.uk>.
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> I'd suggest two repositories actually:
>
> cocoon-docs:
> -documentatio, xdocs
> -stuff to auto-generate docs from the main cocoon repository
> (javadoc, litterate XSL, etc)
> -CVS tagged with version numbers when there is a Cocoon release
>
> cocoon-tools:
> -binary Forrest used to generate the docs
> -used from cocoon-docs build scripts by way of relative paths
Hrm, not too sure we'd want two repositories when one with a tidy
structure will do (keep all related concerns in one place).
How about:
cocoon-docs/
- documentation/ (pure content)
(+ copy of live site? not sure where this lives at the moment)
- tools/ (stuff to get forrest and build site, auto-generate javadoc,
literate xsl, idl etc)
Andrew.
--
Andrew Savory Email: andrew@luminas.co.uk
Managing Director Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658
Luminas Internet Applications Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135
This is not an official statement or order. Web: www.luminas.co.uk
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Le Vendredi, 21 mars 2003, à 13:44 Europe/Zurich, Torsten Curdt a écrit
:
> ...All valid points! I revoke my +10 but keep my -1 for inclusion in
> the
> current cocoon-2.x repos...
ok.
I think the "use Forrest binary" option will get us to the goal faster,
and it doesn't prevent us from moving to a standalone Cocoon generation
later on if there is a need.
> ...Maybe Andrew is right and it's really time for a cocoon-docs repo.
>
> What do you think, guys?
yesyesyes.
I'd suggest two repositories actually:
cocoon-docs:
-documentatio, xdocs
-stuff to auto-generate docs from the main cocoon repository
(javadoc, litterate XSL, etc)
-CVS tagged with version numbers when there is a Cocoon release
cocoon-tools:
-binary Forrest used to generate the docs
-used from cocoon-docs build scripts by way of relative paths
-Bertrand
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@dff.st>.
>> version to generate the docs. As Steven(?) already pointed
>
> ^^^ (yup)
:)
> Been discussing this here with Bruno, I'm starting to change my opinion
> on this:
>
> - of all the Maven/Anakia-based projects, how many actually embed the
> build or docs system into their CVS? Just like we might expect people to
> have Ant installed when they want to build Cocoon, we could expect them
> to install Forrest - if they don't want to build, they will get a
> bin/dist instead with generated (java)docs
>
> - there's forrestbot.cocoondev.org for people who want uptodate/preview
> doco, though fast/immediate preview might not be what people really want
>
> - I assume we are (I am!) tempted to do some 'bootstrap' thing, i.e. a
> tool requiring itself to generate its own docs, but this adds to the
> complexity of the doco environment, and moves attention away from the
> difficult part: Content & Structure
All valid points! I revoke my +10 but keep my -1 for inclusion in the
current cocoon-2.x repos.
Maybe Andrew is right and it's really time for a cocoon-docs repo.
What do you think, guys?
--
Torsten
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 21/03/2003 11:57 Torsten Curdt wrote:
>> Could we add a binary version of Forrest (including Cocoon binaries)
>> to our CVS repository so that everyone can generate the docs reliably
>> from the same version of Forrest, using it as a blackbox tool?
>
>
> That would mean we would have to download cocoon "twice"?!
>
> I am -1 for inclusion in the cocoon repository as binary.
>
> But I am +10 for building cocoon from source and the use *that*
> version to generate the docs. As Steven(?) already pointed
^^^ (yup)
> out: a very good testcase.
Been discussing this here with Bruno, I'm starting to change my opinion
on this:
- of all the Maven/Anakia-based projects, how many actually embed the
build or docs system into their CVS? Just like we might expect people to
have Ant installed when they want to build Cocoon, we could expect them
to install Forrest - if they don't want to build, they will get a
bin/dist instead with generated (java)docs
- there's forrestbot.cocoondev.org for people who want uptodate/preview
doco, though fast/immediate preview might not be what people really want
- I assume we are (I am!) tempted to do some 'bootstrap' thing, i.e. a
tool requiring itself to generate its own docs, but this adds to the
complexity of the doco environment, and moves attention away from the
difficult part: Content & Structure
So couldn't we expect from somebody who wants to contribute to the
official documentation they have Forrest installed?
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: "build forrest" works (was [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS)
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 03:55:34PM +0100, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi Stephan,
>
> >...2. Make a 'ant -f build.new.xml forrest'...
>
> Works here, even though it takes 13 minutes on my powerbook G4.
> It's a small step for man...you know the story ;-)
>
> Two issues that I noticed (not to be picky, just writing them down in
> case someone wants to work on fixes):
>
> -docs/installing/jars.html says "if you see this message, somethings
> wrong with the build!."
>
> -links from docs/faq/index.html work but show empty pages
I've just committed a fix for that in Forrest CVS. Forrest 0.4 assumes
all FAQs are called 'faq.html'. In 0.5 this is parametrizable from a
'controller' sitemap.
There are probably going to be many other small things like this that
need fixing directly in Forrest. For example:
- there's a Docbook file that could be rendered with Forrest CVS, but
not with 0.4.
- CVS Forrest can convert v10 DTD files to v11 format on the fly.
IOW, while Forrest 0.4 does mostly work, the bits that don't need to be
fixed in 0.5.
> Thanks for your work!
+1
--Jeff
>
> -Bertrand
>
"build forrest" works (was [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Hi Stephan,
> ...2. Make a 'ant -f build.new.xml forrest'...
Works here, even though it takes 13 minutes on my powerbook G4.
It's a small step for man...you know the story ;-)
Two issues that I noticed (not to be picky, just writing them down in
case someone wants to work on fixes):
-docs/installing/jars.html says "if you see this message, somethings
wrong with the build!."
-links from docs/faq/index.html work but show empty pages
Thanks for your work!
-Bertrand
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Stephan Michels <st...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Le Vendredi, 21 mars 2003, à 13:40 Europe/Zurich, Stephan Michels a
> écrit :
>
> > ...At the moment I'm fixing some problems with the forrest properties,
> > then
> > I'll commit the build file, so we can experimentalize.
>
> Great!
> Having concrete stuff to test should help us reach a consensus.
Done! Some issues are unresolved.
1. The sitemap src/documentation/sitemap.xconf make troubles.
2. And some file in src/documentation/xdocs disturb the validation
process.
I have these files renamed to *.ignore.
So what to do:
1. Get Forrest, see http://xml.apache.org/forrest/your-project.html
2. Make a 'ant -f build.new.xml forrest'
Thats it.
Puh, one mircostep more, Stephan.
BTW, many thanks to the Forrest team for their great work!
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Le Vendredi, 21 mars 2003, à 13:40 Europe/Zurich, Stephan Michels a
écrit :
> ...At the moment I'm fixing some problems with the forrest properties,
> then
> I'll commit the build file, so we can experimentalize.
Great!
Having concrete stuff to test should help us reach a consensus.
-Bertrand
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Stephan Michels <st...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> <snip/>
>
> > How do you maintain that? Do you always run through the stylesheets
> > and diff like hell, if something was fixed or improved?
>
> Well, if you see it as a testcase. If you change something you (of
> course) also have to take care changing the testcase accordingly. And
> since changes are done incrementally this should not be too bad - I
> assume as naive I am :)
Testcases are good things, but what want you testing? Forrest or
Cocoon ;-)
> We have to do the same for the samples... and it works.
>
> > I like more the version that Forrest generate the docs, and the Cocoon
> > standard dist the samples. It's more SoC, I think ;-)
>
> Sorry - don't see SoC applicable here ;)
Why not? The generation of docs is a concern, and building a XML
framework(including samples) is another.
> I mean... forrest is not just a little jar. It's another 11 MB!!
>
> If we could grab the distribution directly from forrest on demand...
> ...that would be cool! But having it in our repository is duplication
> and waste of bandwith.
Okay, I think separate installation of Forrest is advisable. Setting
a FORREST_HOME and do a 'ant docs', similar to Ant. This doesn't need a
11 MB Binary dist in Cocoon, and much better, make the doc generating
stuff in Cocoon unnecessary.
At the moment I'm fixing some problems with the forrest properties, then
I'll commit the build file, so we can experimentalize.
Stephan.
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@dff.st>.
<snip/>
> How do you maintain that? Do you always run through the stylesheets
> and diff like hell, if something was fixed or improved?
Well, if you see it as a testcase. If you change something you (of
course) also have to take care changing the testcase accordingly. And
since changes are done incrementally this should not be too bad - I
assume as naive I am :)
We have to do the same for the samples... and it works.
> I like more the version that Forrest generate the docs, and the Cocoon
> standard dist the samples. It's more SoC, I think ;-)
Sorry - don't see SoC applicable here ;)
I mean... forrest is not just a little jar. It's another 11 MB!!
If we could grab the distribution directly from forrest on demand...
...that would be cool! But having it in our repository is duplication
and waste of bandwith.
IMO
--
Torsten
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Stephan Michels <st...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> > Could we add a binary version of Forrest (including Cocoon binaries) to
> > our CVS repository so that everyone can generate the docs reliably from
> > the same version of Forrest, using it as a blackbox tool?
+1
>
> That would mean we would have to download cocoon "twice"?!
Yes, one that has been tested and work, and one that hopyfully
work ;-)
> I am -1 for inclusion in the cocoon repository as binary.
>
> But I am +10 for building cocoon from source and the use *that*
> version to generate the docs. As Steven(?) already pointed
> out: a very good testcase.
How do you maintain that? Do you always run through the stylesheets
and diff like hell, if something was fixed or improved?
I like more the version that Forrest generate the docs, and the Cocoon
standard dist the samples. It's more SoC, I think ;-)
Stephan.
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@dff.st>.
>>Problem is, we seem to have two or three people willing to work on this
>>in a short timeframe. I'm afraid that postponing the decision on tools
>>might bring the energy down and send everyone back to waiting state.
+1
> True enough, and it looks like consensus is emerging for cocoon-docs with
> a copy of Forrest in ... I guess it will be easy enough to remove Forrest
> from CVS and add an external dependency at a later date (perhaps when
> there's a "released" Forrest that can be automatically downloaded).
+1
Sounds good to me!
--
Torsten
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Andrew Savory <an...@luminas.co.uk>.
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Problem is, we seem to have two or three people willing to work on this
> in a short timeframe. I'm afraid that postponing the decision on tools
> might bring the energy down and send everyone back to waiting state.
True enough, and it looks like consensus is emerging for cocoon-docs with
a copy of Forrest in ... I guess it will be easy enough to remove Forrest
from CVS and add an external dependency at a later date (perhaps when
there's a "released" Forrest that can be automatically downloaded).
Andrew.
--
Andrew Savory Email: andrew@luminas.co.uk
Managing Director Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658
Luminas Internet Applications Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135
This is not an official statement or order. Web: www.luminas.co.uk
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Le Vendredi, 21 mars 2003, à 13:25 Europe/Zurich, Andrew Savory a écrit
:
> ...Can the forrest-in-cocoon decision
> wait a few days?...
Problem is, we seem to have two or three people willing to work on this
in a short timeframe. I'm afraid that postponing the decision on tools
might bring the energy down and send everyone back to waiting state.
I don't think the question of Forrest or not has much to do with your
(very valid) concerns about merging and litterate programming, so why
wait?
Do we need more elements to decide, or is it just a case of jumping in
the water on one side or the other?
I feel we should make a decision, taking into account what people have
done until now. Apparently Stephan and others are very close from being
able to generate the docs with Forrest, and I think we must give them
what they need to proceed.
As for Steven, I find it hard to decide - but often a suboptimal
decision is better than no decision at all.
-Bertrand
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Andrew Savory <an...@luminas.co.uk>.
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> If we would go for a separate cocoon-docs repository it would be ok to
> have it included IMO. But we had this discussion before IIRC.
Maybe this would be a good time to start the separate cocoon-docs
repository. Initially, it could contain just the tools (forrest) needed to
build the docs, and then as (if) we merge the docs, we could add the
content to the repository.
I'm planning to write a proposal for a cocoon-docs repository, but before
I do that I wanted to test (in public) my ideas on merging the content and
adding literate programming content. Can the forrest-in-cocoon decision
wait a few days?
Andrew.
--
Andrew Savory Email: andrew@luminas.co.uk
Managing Director Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658
Luminas Internet Applications Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135
This is not an official statement or order. Web: www.luminas.co.uk
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@dff.st>.
<snip/>
> Yes, but is it the "concern" of cocoon-doc contributors to test Forrest?
> Sorry, I don't think so. We need a docs-generation system that is
> reliable, so those who want to help don't have to first figure out why
> the docs generation system is broken before they can contribute.
Ok, true. But I am not quite sure if adding just another 11MB to
cocoon-2.x repository (or even both repositories) is the better way!
> Remember, doc contributors aren't necessary committers. They may be
> one-time contributors with a limited amount of time. I think we want
> them spending the majority of their time on content and **not** on
> troubleshooting a system they may not even use/need...
If we would go for a separate cocoon-docs repository it would be ok to
have it included IMO. But we had this discussion before IIRC.
> Just my (at times frustrated) 2 cents for all the times I experienced
> delays because I couldn't build docs on head branch.
Sorry, for that :(
--
Torsten
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Diana Shannon wrote, On 21/03/2003 12.52:
>
> On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 05:57 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
>> But I am +10 for building cocoon from source and the use *that*
>> version to generate the docs. As Steven(?) already pointed
>> out: a very good testcase.
>
>
> Yes, but is it the "concern" of cocoon-doc contributors to test Forrest?
> Sorry, I don't think so. We need a docs-generation system that is
> reliable, so those who want to help don't have to first figure out why
> the docs generation system is broken before they can contribute.
Gump is for tests, or even Forrestbot when we restart autoupdate.
Let's not put the burden of suffering onto those that do not fix it (doc
developers).
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Diana Shannon <sh...@apache.org>.
On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 05:57 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> But I am +10 for building cocoon from source and the use *that*
> version to generate the docs. As Steven(?) already pointed
> out: a very good testcase.
Yes, but is it the "concern" of cocoon-doc contributors to test Forrest?
Sorry, I don't think so. We need a docs-generation system that is
reliable, so those who want to help don't have to first figure out why
the docs generation system is broken before they can contribute.
Remember, doc contributors aren't necessary committers. They may be
one-time contributors with a limited amount of time. I think we want
them spending the majority of their time on content and **not** on
troubleshooting a system they may not even use/need...
Just my (at times frustrated) 2 cents for all the times I experienced
delays because I couldn't build docs on head branch.
Diana
Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@dff.st>.
> Could we add a binary version of Forrest (including Cocoon binaries) to
> our CVS repository so that everyone can generate the docs reliably from
> the same version of Forrest, using it as a blackbox tool?
That would mean we would have to download cocoon "twice"?!
I am -1 for inclusion in the cocoon repository as binary.
But I am +10 for building cocoon from source and the use *that*
version to generate the docs. As Steven(?) already pointed
out: a very good testcase.
--
Torsten