Thanks all for the feedback. Unless there is a strong objection against RST, given its ease-of-use, let's implement the documentation format for Sqoop2 on RST.
Regards, Kathleen On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Arvind Prabhakar <arv...@apache.org> wrote: > Apologies for jumping in late on this thread. My personal preference is to > use RST, even though I have used xdoc in the past and will be happy to go > with it if that is what gets the most support. > > Regards, > Arvind Prabhakar > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Just note maven xdoc has more features :-). >> For screenshot/images you don't have any way to specify width or >> height with apt whereas it's possible with xdoc. >> >> IMHO It depends on doc use case. And with maven it's possible to mix >> apt and xdoc. >> >> 2012/6/22 Jarek Jarcec Cecho <jar...@apache.org>: >> > Hi Kate, >> > please accept my apology for late response. >> > >> > I do not have any strong preference to any particular documentation >> system. I would just prefer to have plain text files rather than more >> complex structures (like the mentioned XML). >> > >> > Jarcec >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:36:44PM -0700, Kathleen Ting wrote: >> >> 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 <jagatsi...@gmail.com> >> 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" <cheol...@cloudera.com> >> 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 <kathl...@apache.org >> > >> >> > > 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 >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Olivier Lamy >> Talend: http://coders.talend.com >> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy >>
