option #2 for me ... ODF. -- Allen
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 11:16, David M Johnson wrote: > I'm trying to get another 2.1 release candidate ready, so I'd like to > resolve this issue. > I'm not sure we had enough folks weigh in to get consensus on this, > so I'd like > to call a vote to decide on one of these two options: > > Pick one: > [ ] Option #1: For Roller 2.1 keep installation guide on wiki as > we always have > [ ] Option #2: For Roller 2.1 instead use Open Document Format > (ODF) as source format for installation guide as described below > > > Plan for using ODF as source format for installation guide in 2.1: > * Use Dave's new ODF version of the installation guide > * Include in release: text, HTML, PDF and ODF versions of the install > guide > * Make same formats available on the Roller web site > * Maintain the 2.1 release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update > them > > > See also: ODF and PDF versions of Roller 2.1 user and install guides > http://people.apache.org/~snoopdave/doc_drafts/ > > > - Dave > > > On Jan 25, 2006, at 12:21 AM, David M Johnson wrote: > > We have up-to-date versions of the user guide and installation > > guides for > > Roller 2.1-incubating in ODF format now. We already decided to use ODF > > for the user guide. > > > > Should we have a vote on whether or not to use the ODF install guide > > in the 2.1 release? If not, I'll put it back on the wiki. > > > > I argue that: > > > > Using ODF in 2.1 does not preclude changing to a different source > > format > > in the future (thanks to well-known, standard XML format and the OO > > Java API). > > > > And I think they are an improvement over the JSPWiki versions, so I > > propose we: > > * Ship the ODF and PDF files in the release > > * Make ODF, PDF and HTML versions available on the web > > * Put the release notes on the wiki, so we can easily update them
