afaik doing the CMS via svnpubsub is only for convenience. We could theoretically also generate the html pages somewhere else. But at the end of the day we need to push it to svn to publish it. This is our way to make sure we have all in a proper historic context.
LieGrue, strub On Monday, 4 August 2014, 20:29, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >2014-08-04 18:20 GMT+00:00 Rafael Benevides <benevi...@redhat.com>: >> It seemed at the first looks that it makes you tight with SVN for repo, > >true but you don't have to see it if you don't want > >> Markdown for format, > >that's the default only > >> and doesn't allow you to embed other documents. >> > >It does > >> Something that came in my mind was to have the documentation as a git >> submodule of the DeltaSpike site, that way we can have it linked and splited >> at the same time. >> > >I think we *have* to put the doc in deltaspike (no indirection) to >keep it consistent > > >> Em 8/4/14, 15:17, Romain Manni-Bucau escreveu: >> >>> Almost: http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html >>> >>> What's the issue with CMS? >>> >>> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >>> >>> >>> 2014-08-04 20:15 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides <benevi...@redhat.com>: >>>> >>>> Maybe it's a silly question: Does all Apache project needs to use Apache >>>> CMS >>>> ? >>>> >>>> >>>> Em 8/4/14, 13:51, John D. Ament escreveu: >>>>> >>>>> There may be some issues here. For one, does anyone know if the apache >>>>> CMS can work in the proposed format? I believe it's a requirement >>>>> currently >>>>> to separate them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Rafael Benevides <benevi...@redhat.com >>>>> <mailto:benevi...@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> As you may known, Red Hat docs team was called to help on >>>>> DeltaSpike docs. After a long period, they have analyzed the >>>>> documentation and bring us an awesome plan that is available here: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/186f_amQ9XuREq8FcO7orxvOjQZtvEEYa7WPj1e8p8bM/edit#heading=h.4sqhyz68wgg2 >>>>> >>>>> The document is opened for comments. >>>>> >>>>> Something that was also discussed not only inside Red Hat but with >>>>> some community members is about the format and source of the >>>>> documentation. I strongly believe that we should have the >>>>> documentation somewhere else but the DS site source. It could >>>>> improve the ease to the community to contribute with it. Having >>>>> said that, it's also suggested that we should use asciidoc as >>>>> documentation format. >>>>> >>>>> So what we have until now ? >>>>> >>>>> - The documentation plan to be reviewed and approved by the DS >>>>> community. Then we can talk about the plans to make it happen. >>>>> - The documentation location: Recommendation to be out of the site >>>>> source. >>>>> - The documentation format: Suggested to use asciidoc. >>>>> >>>>> Please, read the plan and lets discuss about these 3 topics >>>>> individually. >>>>> >>>>> Michelle Murray (whose team provided the plan and she is copied on >>>>> this Thread) can follow the feedback. >>>>> -- >>>>> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >>>>> JBoss Developer >>>>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 <tel:%2B55-61-9269-6576> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Red Hat >>>>> >>>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community >>>>> collaboration. >>>>> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> >>>>> >>>>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288> Youtube >>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam> >>>>> >>>>> >> > > >
