On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:38:40PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > On 05/23/2014 12:13 PM, Steven Hardy wrote: > > [...] > > I'll hold my hand up as one developer who tried to contribute but ran away > > screaming due to all the XML-java-ness of the current process. > > > > I don't think markup complexity is a major barrier to contribution. Needing > > to use a closed source editor and download unfathomably huge amounts of > > java to build locally definitely are though IMO/IME. > > You do not need a closed sourced editor for XML - I'm using emacs and > others in the team use vi for it.
Sure, maybe "need" was the wrong word to use, my apologies. Regardless, the docs refer to a closed source tool being "encouraged", which immediately discouraged me when trying to figure out the workflow. I've tried editing XML in vim a few times, and although it's obviously possible, it's far less painful when I'm dealing with other more human-friendly formats. > Yes, it downloads a lot Java once. We also now build the documents as > part of the gate, so you can also check changes by clicking the > "checkbuild" target, it will show you the converted books, Sure, that's good, but my (and I'd guess many others) preference is for formats which can be easily built locally with only distro-provided tools, not a huge pile of third party java. Not trying to start a format-advocacy argument here, just trying to provide a data-point that, if the success criteria is developer participation in the docs process, then the current toolchain is definitely a barrier to participation for some potential contributors. Steve _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev