Ross Gardler wrote:
The CMS is a "super wiki" - loosely controlled, low barrier to entry -
most importantly *not* published as official docs
lenya does have the authoring and live view for this purpose (and
workflow), so presumably the barrier for editing / submitting for
approval would be lower, and approval/publish would come from a commiter.
The published docs are managed by Forrest as normal using the
locationmap to bring content from both SVN and the CMS
(this step may not be necessary if Lenya can use SVN as a repository)
it cannot yet, but that is one of the things we want to work out.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lenya-dev/200505.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps we are using different terminology here. I see that
committers review/edit and then "commit" changes. The "publish"
is a separate process whereby a group of committed edits
is now ready and the documents are generated and moved to the
actual website.
imho, the commit to SVN of the source document can and should happen
only after a document has been reviewed & approved. this would keep
intermediary versions out of SVN, and would make sure only commiters can
initiate commits to SVN.
After that, how do those "finished" documents get edited again?
In the CMS just like before. Our published docs are generated from the
CMS repository, this is no different from the current situation in which
we publish from our SVN repository.
right, the CMS keeps track of both source and rendered versions, and
after a rewiew/publish cycle, the editing process can start anew.
In other words, we have the chaos of constantly evolving docs under
the surface, on the surface we have nice ordered, version controlled
and managed publications for our users. The migration path between
the two is the close attention to detali of the review process.
Oh dear, i am feeling overwhelmed with the thought of chaos.
if these tools help to get more people involved with working on
documentation, then i think having to review more changes to the docs
than today is a nice burden to have ;)
(with Daisy, Gregor has already acknowledge Lenya doesn't do diffs this
is a *big* problem)
.. and therefore needs attention from the lenya community:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32008
Yes, this is one of the advantages of the fact that the Daisy wiki
tidies the edited content. you always get good diffs regardless of how
the author wrote the content.
lenya uses xml wysiwyg editors, so the diffs should also be quite ok.
there are tools like xmldiff for that purpose.
wyona has some code for this, let me see if we can donate it.
That is exactly my proposal - no dependency. However, if Daisy were to
adopt Forrest as the *only* publishing engine then there would be a
dependency in the sense they could not do static publishing without
Forrest. Since they do not need the multiple input formats they are not
interested in using Forrest as the publishing engine.
i personally would love to delegate lenya's publishing to forrest :)
My thinking precisely. I'd rather go to infra with the start of a solution.
+1
Sounds like duplication of effort to me.
at least for lenya, this dogfood problem exposes some issues that we
need to be working on anyway.
