You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@roller.apache.org by David M Johnson <Da...@Sun.COM> on 2006/01/25 06:21:56 UTC
Back to the original issue (was Re: Install guide in Open...)
On Jan 24, 2006, at 11:30 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> After I sent that response I realized what you meant by "agenda."
>> You're saying that ASF people will think I want to use Open Office
>> because Sun told me to.
>
> Actually, I had not thought of it that way at all. I was
> commenting on just
> the general perception that someone could believe that the ASF was
> promoting
> Open Office by requiring its use by contributors.
Good. I feel better now. Sorry to accuse you of accusing others of
accusing me ;-)
> do you disagree that the conclusion
> I did pose might be drawn? If so, mightn't it be good to have ready
> answers, should the community decide that it wants to adopt that
> format?
Yes, I guess I could see how somebody could come to that conclusion.
I wouldn't agree with them. ODF is an open standard. Multiple vendors
are supporting ODF and even if there were not, Open Office is free,
open source and multi-platform software -- that itself is available from
multiple vendors (Sun, IBM and others?).
>> I'm not pushing an agenda other than my own "want to use modern
>> and easy-to-use tools" agenda.
>
> Yes, I got that point. Daisy and Confluence have both been mooted
> to fill
> that role, too. Too bad that something like Writely doesn't appear
> to be
> freely available to install, rather than use their proprietary
> site. If you
> know of such tools, please let me know.
I like to learn more about Daisy. But do those really compare to a
modern
office suite with integrated tools like diagram and table editors and
printer
support?
Anyhow... back to the original issue I brought up:
We have up-to-date versions of the user guide and installation guides
for
Roller 2.1-incubating in ODF format now. We already decided to use ODF
for the user guide.
Should we have a vote on whether or not to use the ODF install guide
in the 2.1 release? If not, I'll put it back on the wiki.
I argue that:
Using ODF in 2.1 does not preclude changing to a different source
format
in the future (thanks to well-known, standard XML format and the OO
Java API).
And I think they are an improvement over the JSPWiki versions, so I
propose we:
* Ship the ODF and PDF files in the release
* Make ODF, PDF and HTML versions available on the web
* Put the release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update them
- Dave
Re: Back to the original issue (was Re: Install guide in Open...)
Posted by Allen Gilliland <Al...@Sun.COM>.
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 21:21, David M Johnson wrote:
>
> Anyhow... back to the original issue I brought up:
>
> We have up-to-date versions of the user guide and installation guides
> for
> Roller 2.1-incubating in ODF format now. We already decided to use ODF
> for the user guide.
>
> Should we have a vote on whether or not to use the ODF install guide
> in the 2.1 release? If not, I'll put it back on the wiki.
I am fine with having the ODF document in the release, but I think we have to export it to plain text as well. I am fine with asking people to have OO to edit the document, but not just to read it. Roller users should get a plain text install/upgrade/user guide included in each release.
-- Allen
>
> I argue that:
>
> Using ODF in 2.1 does not preclude changing to a different source
> format
> in the future (thanks to well-known, standard XML format and the OO
> Java API).
>
> And I think they are an improvement over the JSPWiki versions, so I
> propose we:
> * Ship the ODF and PDF files in the release
> * Make ODF, PDF and HTML versions available on the web
> * Put the release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update them
>
>
> - Dave
>
Re: VOTE: Keep Roller 2.1 install guide on wiki or use ODF version?
Posted by Allen Gilliland <Al...@Sun.COM>.
option #2 for me ... ODF.
-- Allen
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 11:16, David M Johnson wrote:
> I'm trying to get another 2.1 release candidate ready, so I'd like to
> resolve this issue.
> I'm not sure we had enough folks weigh in to get consensus on this,
> so I'd like
> to call a vote to decide on one of these two options:
>
> Pick one:
> [ ] Option #1: For Roller 2.1 keep installation guide on wiki as
> we always have
> [ ] Option #2: For Roller 2.1 instead use Open Document Format
> (ODF) as source format for installation guide as described below
>
>
> Plan for using ODF as source format for installation guide in 2.1:
> * Use Dave's new ODF version of the installation guide
> * Include in release: text, HTML, PDF and ODF versions of the install
> guide
> * Make same formats available on the Roller web site
> * Maintain the 2.1 release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update
> them
>
>
> See also: ODF and PDF versions of Roller 2.1 user and install guides
> http://people.apache.org/~snoopdave/doc_drafts/
>
>
> - Dave
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2006, at 12:21 AM, David M Johnson wrote:
> > We have up-to-date versions of the user guide and installation
> > guides for
> > Roller 2.1-incubating in ODF format now. We already decided to use ODF
> > for the user guide.
> >
> > Should we have a vote on whether or not to use the ODF install guide
> > in the 2.1 release? If not, I'll put it back on the wiki.
> >
> > I argue that:
> >
> > Using ODF in 2.1 does not preclude changing to a different source
> > format
> > in the future (thanks to well-known, standard XML format and the OO
> > Java API).
> >
> > And I think they are an improvement over the JSPWiki versions, so I
> > propose we:
> > * Ship the ODF and PDF files in the release
> > * Make ODF, PDF and HTML versions available on the web
> > * Put the release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update them
Re: VOTE: Keep Roller 2.1 install guide on wiki or use ODF version?
Posted by Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com>.
I'm probably in the minority, but I'm going to vote +1 for the wiki -
only because it's worked well for AppFuse.
Matt
On 1/26/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/06, David M Johnson <Da...@sun.com> wrote:
> >
> > Pick one:
> > [ ] Option #1: For Roller 2.1 keep installation guide on wiki as
> > we always have
> > [ +1 ] Option #2: For Roller 2.1 instead use Open Document Format
> > (ODF) as source format for installation guide as described below
>
> Option 2, please.
>
> It's something we should revisit in a year or so, see how well it's
> worked as a collaboration move. Both sides of the issue are equally
> correct, so I'm looking forward to seeing how the experiment goes.
>
> Hen
>
Re: VOTE: Keep Roller 2.1 install guide on wiki or use ODF version?
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 1/26/06, David M Johnson <Da...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> Pick one:
> [ ] Option #1: For Roller 2.1 keep installation guide on wiki as
> we always have
> [ +1 ] Option #2: For Roller 2.1 instead use Open Document Format
> (ODF) as source format for installation guide as described below
Option 2, please.
It's something we should revisit in a year or so, see how well it's
worked as a collaboration move. Both sides of the issue are equally
correct, so I'm looking forward to seeing how the experiment goes.
Hen
Re: VOTE: Keep Roller 2.1 install guide on wiki or use ODF version?
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
Can we do Option #2 with a companion HTML file that is updated in
concert with the ODF, so that a standard change log is automatically
posted to the list whenever changes are made? I
-Ted.
On 1/26/06, David M Johnson <Da...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to get another 2.1 release candidate ready, so I'd like to
> resolve this issue.
> I'm not sure we had enough folks weigh in to get consensus on this,
> so I'd like
> to call a vote to decide on one of these two options:
>
> Pick one:
> [ ] Option #1: For Roller 2.1 keep installation guide on wiki as
> we always have
> [ ] Option #2: For Roller 2.1 instead use Open Document Format
> (ODF) as source format for installation guide as described below
>
>
> Plan for using ODF as source format for installation guide in 2.1:
> * Use Dave's new ODF version of the installation guide
> * Include in release: text, HTML, PDF and ODF versions of the install
> guide
> * Make same formats available on the Roller web site
> * Maintain the 2.1 release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update
> them
>
>
> See also: ODF and PDF versions of Roller 2.1 user and install guides
> http://people.apache.org/~snoopdave/doc_drafts/
>
>
> - Dave
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2006, at 12:21 AM, David M Johnson wrote:
> > We have up-to-date versions of the user guide and installation
> > guides for
> > Roller 2.1-incubating in ODF format now. We already decided to use ODF
> > for the user guide.
> >
> > Should we have a vote on whether or not to use the ODF install guide
> > in the 2.1 release? If not, I'll put it back on the wiki.
> >
> > I argue that:
> >
> > Using ODF in 2.1 does not preclude changing to a different source
> > format
> > in the future (thanks to well-known, standard XML format and the OO
> > Java API).
> >
> > And I think they are an improvement over the JSPWiki versions, so I
> > propose we:
> > * Ship the ODF and PDF files in the release
> > * Make ODF, PDF and HTML versions available on the web
> > * Put the release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update them
>
--
HTH, Ted.
http://www.husted.com/poe/
Re: VOTE: Keep Roller 2.1 install guide on wiki or use ODF version?
Posted by Anil Gangolli <an...@busybuddha.org>.
+0 for ODF/OpenOffice
I'm fine with either option at this point. I slightly prefer ODF and
editing with OpenOffice than the wiki, but I would prefer straight HTML
or a text-based format to ODF.
My recent complaints about maintaining the installation guide on the
wiki applied only to one very specific aspect, the inline inclusion of
the context XML files, in which maintenance of XML entities
(particularly &) is intolerably hard. I proposed only to drop these
and go exclusively with the downloaded XML file attachments.
Image attachment maintenance on the wiki, combined with the awkward
versioning by renaming/copying scheme has been another peeve; it doesn't
work, and these links are always breaking, and one seems to need local
filesystem access on the wiki host to fix this, which most of us don't have.
I'm fine using Open Office and seeing how that goes for awhile; I
suspect we'll like it and the end-result will be nicer than the wiki.
However, a little more needs to be thought out for the ODF option.
(1) If there is anything specific (e.g. option settings, etc) we need to
be doing when generating the text, HTML, and PDF versions, that itself
needs to be documented.
(2) Also, we would need a mechanism for publishing/republishing the HTML
version to the Web, either on an Incubator site, or on
rollerweblogger.org. All of the contributors should be able to do this
without assistance from Dave.
--a.
David M Johnson wrote:
>
> I'm trying to get another 2.1 release candidate ready, so I'd like to
> resolve this issue.
> I'm not sure we had enough folks weigh in to get consensus on this, so
> I'd like
> to call a vote to decide on one of these two options:
>
> Pick one:
> [ ] Option #1: For Roller 2.1 keep installation guide on wiki as we
> always have
> [ ] Option #2: For Roller 2.1 instead use Open Document Format
> (ODF) as source format for installation guide as described below
>
>
> Plan for using ODF as source format for installation guide in 2.1:
> * Use Dave's new ODF version of the installation guide
> * Include in release: text, HTML, PDF and ODF versions of the install
> guide
> * Make same formats available on the Roller web site
> * Maintain the 2.1 release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update
> them
>
>
> See also: ODF and PDF versions of Roller 2.1 user and install guides
> http://people.apache.org/~snoopdave/doc_drafts/
>
>
> - Dave
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2006, at 12:21 AM, David M Johnson wrote:
>> We have up-to-date versions of the user guide and installation guides
>> for
>> Roller 2.1-incubating in ODF format now. We already decided to use ODF
>> for the user guide.
>>
>> Should we have a vote on whether or not to use the ODF install guide
>> in the 2.1 release? If not, I'll put it back on the wiki.
>>
>> I argue that:
>>
>> Using ODF in 2.1 does not preclude changing to a different source
>> format
>> in the future (thanks to well-known, standard XML format and the OO
>> Java API).
>>
>> And I think they are an improvement over the JSPWiki versions, so I
>> propose we:
>> * Ship the ODF and PDF files in the release
>> * Make ODF, PDF and HTML versions available on the web
>> * Put the release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update them
>
>
Re: VOTE: Keep Roller 2.1 install guide on wiki or use ODF version?
Posted by David M Johnson <Da...@Sun.COM>.
On Jan 26, 2006, at 2:30 PM, Elias Torres wrote:
> ODF +1
>
> BTW, is the trunk free to change now?
No, but we're getting real close. I hope to have resolutions for all
of the current issues on the 2.1 list today and a new RC2 release
ready shortly.
- Dave
>
> Elias
>
> On 1/26/06, David M Johnson <Da...@sun.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to get another 2.1 release candidate ready, so I'd like to
>> resolve this issue.
>> I'm not sure we had enough folks weigh in to get consensus on this,
>> so I'd like
>> to call a vote to decide on one of these two options:
>>
>> Pick one:
>> [ ] Option #1: For Roller 2.1 keep installation guide on wiki as
>> we always have
>> [ ] Option #2: For Roller 2.1 instead use Open Document Format
>> (ODF) as source format for installation guide as described below
>>
>>
>> Plan for using ODF as source format for installation guide in 2.1:
>> * Use Dave's new ODF version of the installation guide
>> * Include in release: text, HTML, PDF and ODF versions of the install
>> guide
>> * Make same formats available on the Roller web site
>> * Maintain the 2.1 release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update
>> them
>>
>>
>> See also: ODF and PDF versions of Roller 2.1 user and install guides
>> http://people.apache.org/~snoopdave/doc_drafts/
>>
>>
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2006, at 12:21 AM, David M Johnson wrote:
>>> We have up-to-date versions of the user guide and installation
>>> guides for
>>> Roller 2.1-incubating in ODF format now. We already decided to
>>> use ODF
>>> for the user guide.
>>>
>>> Should we have a vote on whether or not to use the ODF install guide
>>> in the 2.1 release? If not, I'll put it back on the wiki.
>>>
>>> I argue that:
>>>
>>> Using ODF in 2.1 does not preclude changing to a different source
>>> format
>>> in the future (thanks to well-known, standard XML format and the OO
>>> Java API).
>>>
>>> And I think they are an improvement over the JSPWiki versions, so I
>>> propose we:
>>> * Ship the ODF and PDF files in the release
>>> * Make ODF, PDF and HTML versions available on the web
>>> * Put the release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update them
>>
Re: VOTE: Keep Roller 2.1 install guide on wiki or use ODF version?
Posted by Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us>.
ODF +1
BTW, is the trunk free to change now?
Elias
On 1/26/06, David M Johnson <Da...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to get another 2.1 release candidate ready, so I'd like to
> resolve this issue.
> I'm not sure we had enough folks weigh in to get consensus on this,
> so I'd like
> to call a vote to decide on one of these two options:
>
> Pick one:
> [ ] Option #1: For Roller 2.1 keep installation guide on wiki as
> we always have
> [ ] Option #2: For Roller 2.1 instead use Open Document Format
> (ODF) as source format for installation guide as described below
>
>
> Plan for using ODF as source format for installation guide in 2.1:
> * Use Dave's new ODF version of the installation guide
> * Include in release: text, HTML, PDF and ODF versions of the install
> guide
> * Make same formats available on the Roller web site
> * Maintain the 2.1 release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update
> them
>
>
> See also: ODF and PDF versions of Roller 2.1 user and install guides
> http://people.apache.org/~snoopdave/doc_drafts/
>
>
> - Dave
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2006, at 12:21 AM, David M Johnson wrote:
> > We have up-to-date versions of the user guide and installation
> > guides for
> > Roller 2.1-incubating in ODF format now. We already decided to use ODF
> > for the user guide.
> >
> > Should we have a vote on whether or not to use the ODF install guide
> > in the 2.1 release? If not, I'll put it back on the wiki.
> >
> > I argue that:
> >
> > Using ODF in 2.1 does not preclude changing to a different source
> > format
> > in the future (thanks to well-known, standard XML format and the OO
> > Java API).
> >
> > And I think they are an improvement over the JSPWiki versions, so I
> > propose we:
> > * Ship the ODF and PDF files in the release
> > * Make ODF, PDF and HTML versions available on the web
> > * Put the release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update them
>
VOTE: Keep Roller 2.1 install guide on wiki or use ODF version?
Posted by David M Johnson <Da...@Sun.COM>.
I'm trying to get another 2.1 release candidate ready, so I'd like to
resolve this issue.
I'm not sure we had enough folks weigh in to get consensus on this,
so I'd like
to call a vote to decide on one of these two options:
Pick one:
[ ] Option #1: For Roller 2.1 keep installation guide on wiki as
we always have
[ ] Option #2: For Roller 2.1 instead use Open Document Format
(ODF) as source format for installation guide as described below
Plan for using ODF as source format for installation guide in 2.1:
* Use Dave's new ODF version of the installation guide
* Include in release: text, HTML, PDF and ODF versions of the install
guide
* Make same formats available on the Roller web site
* Maintain the 2.1 release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update
them
See also: ODF and PDF versions of Roller 2.1 user and install guides
http://people.apache.org/~snoopdave/doc_drafts/
- Dave
On Jan 25, 2006, at 12:21 AM, David M Johnson wrote:
> We have up-to-date versions of the user guide and installation
> guides for
> Roller 2.1-incubating in ODF format now. We already decided to use ODF
> for the user guide.
>
> Should we have a vote on whether or not to use the ODF install guide
> in the 2.1 release? If not, I'll put it back on the wiki.
>
> I argue that:
>
> Using ODF in 2.1 does not preclude changing to a different source
> format
> in the future (thanks to well-known, standard XML format and the OO
> Java API).
>
> And I think they are an improvement over the JSPWiki versions, so I
> propose we:
> * Ship the ODF and PDF files in the release
> * Make ODF, PDF and HTML versions available on the web
> * Put the release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update them