hepabolu wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
No, I don't think there is an easy
update procedure into Daisy.
Hmm, and I thought writing docs gets easier... :)
Well, I find WYSIWYG editing in Daisy a lot easier than writing XML
documents with trial and error when it comes to basic layout (i.e.
headers, sections etc.).
Ok, so actually this means that the docs for 2.1.x and "daisy" get out
of sync, right? Wouldn't it be better to completly remove the docs from
the 2.1.x branch as well? This would avoid confusion, applying patches
to different sources in different formats etc.
That's precisely my intention. Bruno has made a snapshot mid June of the
2.1.x docs and converted them into Daisy in the "legacydocs" collection.
What I want to do is check each and every document, decide on it's
relevancy and, if necessary, update it with its 2.1.x counterpart and
move it into the "documentation" collection in Daisy.
Once that process is done, I want to figure out how to get the info from
Daisy onto the website (preferably through an easier route/procedure
than the current one). If that works, I'm planning on updating the
website once every one or two months, depending on the number of updates
I've done in Daisy.
OTOH: there are definitely docs missing from the website at the moment
(e.g. FAQs, already Bugzilla entry). I could focus first on getting all
the docs in Daisy, i.e. recreate the original website, and start the
Daisy-to-website update ASAP. Then there will be hardly new
documentation on the website, but at least all the "old" info will be
there again.
WDYT?
Well, I would prioritise getting something published. Make the assuption
that in a weeks time you'll cease to be able to work on this. Make sure
that at that point you'll have something to show for it.
So, I'd get all the content across into Daisy, as is, then get Forrest
running so we are again able to publish our site. Then either go through
each page or add new FAQs as needed, with it easy to publish your
changes on a day by day basis, without the situation we're in at the
moment where we can't publish the site because we don't know which repo
it is supposed to be in, or if we do (i.e. Daisy) it is in a repo that
it currently can't be published from.
Does that make sense?
If you don't mind I just remove the docs I worked on from SVN, so you're
required to update Daisy. ;-)
I'd do that as soon as we can publish the site from Daisy :-)
One point, for general reference: there are negligible differences
between 2.1 and trunk docs. I did a diff across the two versions, and
IIRC I merged the changes, so 2.1 and 'site' is all we need at the
moment, until we want the docs for 2.1 and trunk to diverge.
Great to see what you're doing, Helma.
Regards, Upayavira
