Thanks Cheolsoo and Jagat for your feedback. Jagat, in regards to your question about what was the issue with how the Sqoop1 docs were generated: Sqoop1 docs were generated with a native tool, AsciiDoc. For Sqoop2, we need a document system that does not require the user to install a native tool.
Other Sqoop Devs - what's your document system preference? Regards, Kathleen On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Jagat Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > We should avoid xml files at they consume lot of time managing the > documents. > > How about > > http://maven.apache.org/doxia/references/apt-format.html > > Hadoop core has moved away from xml docs to maven apt types docs. > > Also what were the issues with old sqoop1 docs , those were text based and > managing those files was easy thing i guess. > > > On 21-Jun-2012 5:01 AM, "Cheolsoo Park" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 for RST. > > > > I don't enjoy editing xml files. But if xdoc provides > > better integration with maven, I wouldn't mind using it either. > > > > Cheolsoo > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Kathleen Ting <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Sqoop Devs - > > > > > > In regards to implementing a documentation system for Sqoop2 ( > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-492), I am leaning towards > > > either RST (http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html) or xdoc ( > > > maven.apache.org/doxia/references/xdoc-format.html). > > > > > > Do you have a preference between RST or xdoc? > > > > > > Or feel free to propose another documentation format for consideration. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Kathleen > > > > > >
