On 25 Jul 2012, at 08:05, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > Hi, > > CMS should be fine for this requirements then it needs some work but offers > all the needed hooks. > > At least for consistency with other apache projects (a lot migrated to the > cms) i think it is good to use it.
I agree, it seems like a good tool. > > I know this topic will be frustrating for half of the people engaged here > since red hat and apahe guys doesn't currently use the same tools but i > think/hope nobody will feel frustrated once the doc will be in place. We're not really that far apart. We've started to move over to a very similar set of tools: * awestruct, which is kinda like the CMS, but different * markdown, for shorter docs (e.g. READMEs) * asciidoc for longer docs (explained the differences elsewhere :-) Awestruct is addresses half of what Apache CMS does, it is the bit that reads in a source file, and spits out the HTML. It doesn't do the "continuous integration" and "workflow" bits, where you check into some SCM, and then the CMS picks this up, and asks for confirmation to publish, you are left to do that yourself. So the overall idea is very similar, just the details are different. > > Side note: on openejb website we have an anonymous edit function (not sure > it is cms or openejb hook but in all case can be used in DS for sure) which > is pretty interesting for OS projects IMO. > > - Romain > > > 2012/7/25 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > >> David, the CMS is already set up and running (in SVN [1]). We just need a >> bit more stylish css. >> >> And you can perfectly create pdf docs out of markdown. >> >> Of course we can also use alternative formats. But to me this is like a >> colour preference - markdown is supported out of the box and provides all >> needed options. >> >> Shane, I don't think I bypassed anyone. We discussed this since 6 months >> and noone started working on it. Thus I finally dropped a mail and then >> implemented it. I also got no stop mail back then. >> Honestly I really don't care which format we use, IF someone else is doing >> the work and others can easily add documentation. >> >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/deltaspike/site/trunk/ >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> >>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org >>> Cc: Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:37 AM >>> Subject: Re: [suggestion] - Documentation >>> >>> T he answer to both these questions really that the CMS creates >>> "websites", some details on that below >>> >>> I'll note that the CMS is svn based -- maybe undesirable given the use of >>> git. >>> >>> On Jul 24, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Shane Bryzak wrote: >>> >>>> Does the choice of Apache CMS for hosting documentation meet the >> following >>> requirements? >>>> >>>> 1) Making available the documentation for previously released versions >> of >>> DeltaSpike. >>> >>> If by "make available" the intention is browsable on the website, then >>> sure there are ways to handle that. >>> >>>> 2) Making available the documentation in offline formats, such as HTML >> or >>> PDF available for download. >>> >>> Certainly you can use the same source to generate non-website looking >> HTML. >>> Same goes for PDF. >>> >>> You wouldn't be using the CMS to do this, but the CMS doesn't prevent >>> it. It'd be something we setup ourselves and could be done via a CI >> server >>> or something done at release time. >>> >>> Basically the CMS is a system that is for generate website html using the >>> following layout: >>> >>> - content/<source-files-and-directories> >>> - lib/<site-generating-perl-functions> >>> - templates/<whatever-you-need-for-templates> >>> >>> When something in 'content/' is updated, it will run it through lib/ >>> (which leverages templates/) and save the resulting html to disk and >> take care >>> of synching that html file from staging to production. >>> >>> When something in 'lib/' or 'templates/' is updated, it pretends >>> as if everything in 'content/' has changed and performs the above step >>> on every source file. >>> >>> You can organize the 'content/' dir however you want. That could mean: >>> >>> - content/v0.1/ >>> - content/v0.2/ >>> - content/current/ >>> >>> Where 'current' gets versioned on release. Or anything at all. Maybe >>> just: >>> >>> - content/<wild-wild-west> >>> >>> >>> So the short answer is there isn't anything there to prevent or help the >> two >>> points. >>> >>> In terms of generating outside the CMS which is what would be needed for >> say, >>> turning many files into one file such as a zip of html or a PDF, it's up >> to >>> us. There are projects that do it via buildbot. Buildbot is not so >> much a CI >>> tool as it is "cron with a webUI" and also happens to have the ability >>> to be trigger by commits. >>> >>> Really, you can get anything done with buildbot without much in the way >> of >>> restrictions. It's a mediocre CI system and an amazing cron replacement. >>> >>> >>> -David >>> >>
