On 12/29/11 20:34, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Dec 29, 2011, at 9:52 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>> On 12/29/11 16:51, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 29, 2011, at 12:48 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In terms of quick and easy converting we could just take all the existing
>>>>> html files
>>>>> and check them into the 'rat/site/trunk/content/rat/' directory of svn.
>>>>> Then we just let Joe know we're ready and he sets up the actual
>>>>> production publishing.
>>>>
>>>> The content at http://incubator.apache.org/rat is generated by Maven, is
>>>> developer-oriented and describes only classic rat.
>>>>
>>>> Now we have CMS, IMHO creating new, user-oriented top level
>>>> documentation covering all the suite would make sense, with developer
>>>> documentation generated by Maven in subdirectories.
>>>
>>> So something like this?
>>>
>>> rat/ (the root)
>>> rat/(main "rat the tool" section)
>>> maven/
>>> whisker/
>>> maven/
>>> eye/
>>> maven/
>>> scan/
>>> maven/
>>> tentacles/
>>> maven/
>>
>> (Not quite what I had in mind but) works for me :-)
>
> If you can "sketch" out what you were thinking that'd be great. The above is
> maybe a little tedious.
I hadn't really given the matter much thought, so let's start from that
suggestion...
IMHO we should allow tools to pick the most appropriate tool for them.
So, renaming maven -> docs would provide space for generated
documentation of any sort:
rat/
rat/
docs/ <- generated by Maven
whisker/
docs/ <- generated by Maven
eye/
docs/ <- generated by Python?
scan/
docs/ <- ??
tentacles/
docs/ <-generated by Maven?
Whisker is a build tool extension. Maven sites work well for this sort
of component. My inclination would be to HTTP redirect rat/whisker ->
rat/whisker/docs and maintain the Whisker documentation only in Maven.
For eye, the primary use case is check out and use as source. So
building the documentation using the CMS would be much more convenient.
Robert
