You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@gora.apache.org by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com> on 2012/11/30 12:47:28 UTC
Gora Site Docs
Hi All,
I'm currently setting about the transition from Forrest to Maven for
the site docs.
It complicates things by having the "current" two tier structure which
we maintain for the site docs. I therefore propose to just have docs.
Enis, you had reasons and justification behind the legacy Gora
documentation structure, if you could remind us again it would be
excellent.
I am working on this today regardless and will hopefully have a new
proposal for the Mavenized site prepared shortly.
Thanks, everyone.
Happy St Andrews Day
Lewis
--
Lewis
Re: Gora Site Docs
Posted by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
AFAIK the site docs (in thier current form are in the xdocs format),
however it seems that they are also marked up with some
html/xhtml/xdoc meaning that automating the transformation into the
apt format is becoming a hellishly tedious and extremely time
consuming task.
I'm using the doxia converter tool to do this but every document seems
to have numerous problems and the doxia stack traces make me want to
smash the place up.
I'll persist and see where I get.
@Henry,
If I can I'll get the new site sorted for all of the site docs, so
that we can use maven for publishing from now on.
Thanks
Lewis
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for the Fluido skin. But this is just for the release-independent site,
> right?
>
> - Henry
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I started the Maven transition and can complete tomorrow.
>>
>> Is everyone happy with the fluido skin that I mentioned?
>>
>> If so then I will work to get it sorted out tomorrow.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Lewis
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Sorry, meant to reply this, but totally fell out of my radar.
>> >
>> > The reason why we are doing per-release and release-independent docs is
>> > that there are some docs that document the code (tutorial, javadoc, etc),
>> > and some docs that dont (the main site).
>> >
>> > Having said that, I don't think keeping the docs separated is a blocker
>> for
>> > going maven. We can merge these, and if it still makes sense to separate
>> > the two, we can do it later.
>> >
>> > Enis
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>> > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Henry,
>> >>
>> >> When I started on this my opinion changed somewhat
>> >> The investment required is as follows
>> >>
>> >> 1) Maven (svnpubsub) I can grab the maven fluido skin [0] (which looks
>> >> OK) and have it up and running reasonably shortly.
>> >> 2) Apache CMS, this requires someone writing the site however the
>> >> publishing workflow is so much less hassle.
>> >>
>> >> What do you think?
>> >>
>> >> Lewis
>> >>
>> >> [0] http://maven.apache.org/skins/maven-fluido-skin/
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Lewis,
>> >> >
>> >> > With Maven site, does it mean we are still using the svn pubsub or we
>> >> could
>> >> > move to ASF CMS for publishing it?
>> >> >
>> >> > - Henry
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>> >> > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi All,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm currently setting about the transition from Forrest to Maven for
>> >> >> the site docs.
>> >> >> It complicates things by having the "current" two tier structure
>> which
>> >> >> we maintain for the site docs. I therefore propose to just have docs.
>> >> >> Enis, you had reasons and justification behind the legacy Gora
>> >> >> documentation structure, if you could remind us again it would be
>> >> >> excellent.
>> >> >> I am working on this today regardless and will hopefully have a new
>> >> >> proposal for the Mavenized site prepared shortly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks, everyone.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Happy St Andrews Day
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Lewis
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Lewis
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Lewis
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lewis
>>
--
Lewis
Re: Gora Site Docs
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
+1 for the Fluido skin. But this is just for the release-independent site,
right?
- Henry
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> I started the Maven transition and can complete tomorrow.
>
> Is everyone happy with the fluido skin that I mentioned?
>
> If so then I will work to get it sorted out tomorrow.
>
> Best
>
> Lewis
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, meant to reply this, but totally fell out of my radar.
> >
> > The reason why we are doing per-release and release-independent docs is
> > that there are some docs that document the code (tutorial, javadoc, etc),
> > and some docs that dont (the main site).
> >
> > Having said that, I don't think keeping the docs separated is a blocker
> for
> > going maven. We can merge these, and if it still makes sense to separate
> > the two, we can do it later.
> >
> > Enis
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Henry,
> >>
> >> When I started on this my opinion changed somewhat
> >> The investment required is as follows
> >>
> >> 1) Maven (svnpubsub) I can grab the maven fluido skin [0] (which looks
> >> OK) and have it up and running reasonably shortly.
> >> 2) Apache CMS, this requires someone writing the site however the
> >> publishing workflow is so much less hassle.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Lewis
> >>
> >> [0] http://maven.apache.org/skins/maven-fluido-skin/
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Lewis,
> >> >
> >> > With Maven site, does it mean we are still using the svn pubsub or we
> >> could
> >> > move to ASF CMS for publishing it?
> >> >
> >> > - Henry
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> >> > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi All,
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm currently setting about the transition from Forrest to Maven for
> >> >> the site docs.
> >> >> It complicates things by having the "current" two tier structure
> which
> >> >> we maintain for the site docs. I therefore propose to just have docs.
> >> >> Enis, you had reasons and justification behind the legacy Gora
> >> >> documentation structure, if you could remind us again it would be
> >> >> excellent.
> >> >> I am working on this today regardless and will hopefully have a new
> >> >> proposal for the Mavenized site prepared shortly.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks, everyone.
> >> >>
> >> >> Happy St Andrews Day
> >> >>
> >> >> Lewis
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Lewis
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Lewis
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Lewis
>
Re: Gora Site Docs
Posted by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>.
I started the Maven transition and can complete tomorrow.
Is everyone happy with the fluido skin that I mentioned?
If so then I will work to get it sorted out tomorrow.
Best
Lewis
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, meant to reply this, but totally fell out of my radar.
>
> The reason why we are doing per-release and release-independent docs is
> that there are some docs that document the code (tutorial, javadoc, etc),
> and some docs that dont (the main site).
>
> Having said that, I don't think keeping the docs separated is a blocker for
> going maven. We can merge these, and if it still makes sense to separate
> the two, we can do it later.
>
> Enis
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Henry,
>>
>> When I started on this my opinion changed somewhat
>> The investment required is as follows
>>
>> 1) Maven (svnpubsub) I can grab the maven fluido skin [0] (which looks
>> OK) and have it up and running reasonably shortly.
>> 2) Apache CMS, this requires someone writing the site however the
>> publishing workflow is so much less hassle.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Lewis
>>
>> [0] http://maven.apache.org/skins/maven-fluido-skin/
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Lewis,
>> >
>> > With Maven site, does it mean we are still using the svn pubsub or we
>> could
>> > move to ASF CMS for publishing it?
>> >
>> > - Henry
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>> > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi All,
>> >>
>> >> I'm currently setting about the transition from Forrest to Maven for
>> >> the site docs.
>> >> It complicates things by having the "current" two tier structure which
>> >> we maintain for the site docs. I therefore propose to just have docs.
>> >> Enis, you had reasons and justification behind the legacy Gora
>> >> documentation structure, if you could remind us again it would be
>> >> excellent.
>> >> I am working on this today regardless and will hopefully have a new
>> >> proposal for the Mavenized site prepared shortly.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, everyone.
>> >>
>> >> Happy St Andrews Day
>> >>
>> >> Lewis
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Lewis
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lewis
>>
--
Lewis
Re: Gora Site Docs
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, meant to reply this, but totally fell out of my radar.
The reason why we are doing per-release and release-independent docs is
that there are some docs that document the code (tutorial, javadoc, etc),
and some docs that dont (the main site).
Having said that, I don't think keeping the docs separated is a blocker for
going maven. We can merge these, and if it still makes sense to separate
the two, we can do it later.
Enis
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Henry,
>
> When I started on this my opinion changed somewhat
> The investment required is as follows
>
> 1) Maven (svnpubsub) I can grab the maven fluido skin [0] (which looks
> OK) and have it up and running reasonably shortly.
> 2) Apache CMS, this requires someone writing the site however the
> publishing workflow is so much less hassle.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Lewis
>
> [0] http://maven.apache.org/skins/maven-fluido-skin/
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Lewis,
> >
> > With Maven site, does it mean we are still using the svn pubsub or we
> could
> > move to ASF CMS for publishing it?
> >
> > - Henry
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I'm currently setting about the transition from Forrest to Maven for
> >> the site docs.
> >> It complicates things by having the "current" two tier structure which
> >> we maintain for the site docs. I therefore propose to just have docs.
> >> Enis, you had reasons and justification behind the legacy Gora
> >> documentation structure, if you could remind us again it would be
> >> excellent.
> >> I am working on this today regardless and will hopefully have a new
> >> proposal for the Mavenized site prepared shortly.
> >>
> >> Thanks, everyone.
> >>
> >> Happy St Andrews Day
> >>
> >> Lewis
> >>
> >> --
> >> Lewis
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Lewis
>
Re: Gora Site Docs
Posted by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>.
Hi Henry,
When I started on this my opinion changed somewhat
The investment required is as follows
1) Maven (svnpubsub) I can grab the maven fluido skin [0] (which looks
OK) and have it up and running reasonably shortly.
2) Apache CMS, this requires someone writing the site however the
publishing workflow is so much less hassle.
What do you think?
Lewis
[0] http://maven.apache.org/skins/maven-fluido-skin/
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lewis,
>
> With Maven site, does it mean we are still using the svn pubsub or we could
> move to ASF CMS for publishing it?
>
> - Henry
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'm currently setting about the transition from Forrest to Maven for
>> the site docs.
>> It complicates things by having the "current" two tier structure which
>> we maintain for the site docs. I therefore propose to just have docs.
>> Enis, you had reasons and justification behind the legacy Gora
>> documentation structure, if you could remind us again it would be
>> excellent.
>> I am working on this today regardless and will hopefully have a new
>> proposal for the Mavenized site prepared shortly.
>>
>> Thanks, everyone.
>>
>> Happy St Andrews Day
>>
>> Lewis
>>
>> --
>> Lewis
>>
--
Lewis
Re: Gora Site Docs
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Lewis,
With Maven site, does it mean we are still using the svn pubsub or we could
move to ASF CMS for publishing it?
- Henry
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm currently setting about the transition from Forrest to Maven for
> the site docs.
> It complicates things by having the "current" two tier structure which
> we maintain for the site docs. I therefore propose to just have docs.
> Enis, you had reasons and justification behind the legacy Gora
> documentation structure, if you could remind us again it would be
> excellent.
> I am working on this today regardless and will hopefully have a new
> proposal for the Mavenized site prepared shortly.
>
> Thanks, everyone.
>
> Happy St Andrews Day
>
> Lewis
>
> --
> Lewis
>