I actually really liked the scalate project and writing the docs in IDEA, making a patch and tossing it in github.
Offline editing also seems really nice for when you are on planes, in airports or hotels. Not to mention if you actually fix a bug and submit a patch you could fix documentation in one feel swoop. And with the possibility of editing and running Jetty locally - it was really easy. Just my .02, i'm one of those that like irc for the quick informal style over forums for example, I also really like svn/git since I have tooling around versioning et al. And yeah, making patches is "klunky" using diff and things like that. /je On Nov 10, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2010, at 10:28 AM, James Strachan wrote: > >> On 10 November 2010 15:15, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On Wednesday 10 November 2010 9:59:11 am James Strachan wrote: >>>> On 10 November 2010 14:51, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> For most of the people on this list, it ISN'T a big deal. We deal with >>>>> svn and mvn every day. For others, it could be. >>>> >>>> Given 99% of all our documentation and web content is developed by >>>> committers or folks who are capable of editing text files and using >>>> git/svn, I'd rather use a system that helps the 99% be more effective. >>>> >>>> Maybe you should just help out this one CXF person & show them how to >>>> fork & commit to github (its very easy), then you can easily pull >>>> their commits from there? >>> >>> Umm.. no. Pulling branches from github is NOT, at this point, an >>> acceptable >>> way of getting content into an Apache product. They would still need to >>> create a patch and attach it to JIRA with the "grant" checkbox checked. >> >> Whatever happens folks have to raise a JIRA and click the "grant" checkbox. >> >> I fail to see why a link to a specific commit (i.e. a link to a number >> of patches) is any less suitable than a number of patch files being >> attached in place to the JIRA. Got anything specific to back this up >> or is it just that we've not done it before? >> >> Patch files are a total PITA for both the person contributing and the >> person applying the patch. (They usually break, get out of sync, have >> whitespace issues and frequently have the wrong path information in >> them & often have problems with new/renamed/deleted files). >> >> If this discussion really is about being a "community issue" and >> making it easy for both folks to contribute and for committers to >> apply those contributions, I'd rather we figure out this issue of >> using links to git commits as an alternative to patch files on JIRAs - >> this could make a *massive* difference to both getting contributions >> and more effectively applying them IMHO. Helping scm-novices >> contribute to documentation (which they've never really done so far on >> Camel anyway) seems quite irrelevant in comparison. > I don't know if this is a scm-novices issues. We had contributions from not > committers in the past. > Johan (before his commiter days) is one example, Steve Bate is another. I > would rather ask them how likely would it be to contribute to doc if they had > to co/edit/submit-patch, vs edit in-place wiki style. > I know they are not scm-novices. > > I am open to any alternative that would not raise the barrier to entry for > documentation contributors and that's acceptable to the ASF. > > Hadrian > >> >> -- >> James >> ------- >> FuseSource >> Email: ja...@fusesource.com >> Web: http://fusesource.com >> Twitter: jstrachan >> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ >> >> Open Source Integration >
