Dirkjan, please just concentrate on getting the output targets of your
existing Makefile working. (The Makefile I saw when I checked out your
Github repo last.) Don't bother yourself with Autotools. Just get the docs
dir working as if it were a separate concern, and I will take care of
integration.
The docs should be hosted on https://couchdb.apache.org/ imo.
B.
On 3 Aug 2012, at 04:47, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>> That's fine. Just get the Sphinx makefile working enough to generate the
>> docs in the current working directory. Then merge
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> I'm trying to summarize the actions we need to put in place here:
>
> 1. create the doc branch , start to track the process of the
> conversion to make sure we didn't lost an information.
I have a docs branch working on this:
https://github
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> That's fine. Just get the Sphinx makefile working enough to generate the
> docs in the current working directory. Then merge your docs branch to
> master. At that point, I will convert your makefile into an Autotools
> makefile, and hook it up w
That's fine. Just get the Sphinx makefile working enough to generate the
docs in the current working directory. Then merge your docs branch to
master. At that point, I will convert your makefile into an Autotools
makefile, and hook it up with all the right stuff. Sounds like we have
consensus, and
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> What is Pytohn nirvana? Is that related to the Sphinx effort I checked out
> towards the end of this thread?
Sphinx is written in Python, but I'm not sure why Dave mentioned the
Python nirvana. You don't need to write any Python to improve Sphi
Dirkjan,
Texinfo is important because we are using Autotools, and it expects texinfo
so it can install info pages. Autotools comes with a toolchain which will
convert texinfo into other formats for you, for free. The user doesn't need
anything installed locally on their machine. This is why I list
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
> Do we have a concensus now to go for RST & python nirvana?
If we do, a proposed plan forward, with Dave and Robert N.:
- Keep the docs branch as it is, with DocBook docs
- Iterate on the Sphinx docs in the docs branch (for example based o
snip, hopefully a summary.
Situation:
Our docs are sucky, fragmented and what there is needs some attention
(wiki, couchbase, guide).
Couchbase has kindly donated DocBook[1] format API docs, and the tools
to manage that. Woot!
We don't have a clear understanding of what we are trying to produce
as
(For reference, Benoît, Sphinx happily satisfies option 1.)
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2012, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> > Sorry guys. Life got in the way, as it does.
> >
> > As I see it, we have two options:
> >
> > 1) Pick a source format that
Sorry guys! It was literally in bed half asleep when I sent that! ^_^
The RST stuff looks slick as fuck. Are we ready to merge this in to our
main repos? I love it.
Just double checked the Pandoc docs, and we can convert the rst in to
Texinfo.
So, we have two options from here:
- Convert thi
On Wednesday, August 1, 2012, Noah Slater wrote:
> Sorry guys. Life got in the way, as it does.
>
> As I see it, we have two options:
>
> 1) Pick a source format that can convert to Texinfo. The source format
> should be easy to EDIT. The Texinfo requirement is so that it hooks in to
> Autotools.
Hi all!
I had some free time to try port docbook docs to sphinx and that's
what I'd done:
http://kxepal.iriscouch.com/docs/1.1/index.html
Currently I'd done 1-9 chapters, some typo fixes and little structure
refactoring and now I have to go work. Others things + term generation
I could try to fi
Sorry guys. Life got in the way, as it does.
As I see it, we have two options:
1) Pick a source format that can convert to Texinfo. The source format should
be easy to EDIT. The Texinfo requirement is so that it hooks in to Autotools.
(Which gives us info pages, HTML, PDF, etc, for free.)
2) W
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> I've converted the docs into reST + Sphinx here (via Pandoc):
>
> https://github.com/djco/couchdb/tree/docs/share/docs/sphinx-docs
> http://couchdb.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
>
> This needs a little more reordering and structuring, but I t
I'm liking what I see, awesome work everyone. Can someone help outline what it
takes to have this on master?
For me, it's the .rst files under (say) and the commands to build the output
html incorporated into our build system.
B.
On 31 Jul 2012, at 21:23, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> I've convert
That's superb Dirkjan - good job!
On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 at 21:23, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> I've converted the docs into reST + Sphinx here (via Pandoc):
>
> https://github.com/djco/couchdb/tree/docs/share/docs/sphinx-docs
> http://couchdb.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
>
> This needs a little m
I've converted the docs into reST + Sphinx here (via Pandoc):
https://github.com/djco/couchdb/tree/docs/share/docs/sphinx-docs
http://couchdb.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
This needs a little more reordering and structuring, but I think it
looks pretty good already.
I'd be happy to work on this mor
python + sphinx http://sphinx.pocoo.org/
On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 at 16:29, Robert Newson wrote:
>
> Benoit, what sort of effort would be involved in that switch? Am I right that
> the toolchain for building the docs would be wholly Python?
>
> B.
>
> On 31 Jul 2012, at 15:38, Dirkjan Ochtm
Benoit, what sort of effort would be involved in that switch? Am I right that
the toolchain for building the docs would be wholly Python?
B.
On 31 Jul 2012, at 15:38, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
>> Those are all good points, thanks. I haven't
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
> Those are all good points, thanks. I haven't used Sphinx, is it popular? Are
> there any other choices?
It's quite popular. Look at readthedocs.org (free Sphinx hosting) or
the Python documentation for some examples.
Using Sphinx/reST woul
On 31 Jul 2012, at 16:01, Robert Newson wrote:
> I haven't used Sphinx, is it popular?
Sphinx is very popular in the Python world. It's a great tool.
reStructuredText is not much different from Markdown to being.
Those are all good points, thanks. I haven't used Sphinx, is it popular? Are
there any other choices?
Does this decision block getting the current work onto the master branch? My
main concern with the donated documentation is not with the DocBook format
itself (I quite like it, but I'd switch
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
>>
>> I dislike a veto without an adequate reason. Can you make your objections
>> explicit? What can't we do (that we need) with Markdown?
>
> I gave some:
>>>[..] There is no real d
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
>
> I dislike a veto without an adequate reason. Can you make your objections
> explicit? What can't we do (that we need) with Markdown?
I gave some:
>>[..] There is no real doc system in markdown which will
>> force to write another script
I dislike a veto without an adequate reason. Can you make your objections
explicit? What can't we do (that we need) with Markdown?
B.
On 31 Jul 2012, at 13:55, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> -1 on markdown. There is no real doc system in markdown which will
> force to write another script and we wil
-1 on markdown. There is no real doc system in markdown which will
force to write another script and we will lost some features given by
docbook (linking, references...)
If we want to move from docbook I would strongly suggest to go for
sphinx doc [1] in ReStructuredText. Also sphix is a supporte
+1 for markdown.
I'm stepping up (with Paul Davis) to get on with the BigCouch merge, which will
mean these docs will need a fair amount of editing and expanding. It would be
nice if they were in a format that encouraged that.
B.
On 31 Jul 2012, at 03:08, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
> On 30 July
On 30 July 2012 18:41, Simon Metson wrote:
> Hi,
> Has this moved on at all? Thinking about it a bit more (off and on)
> I'm inclined to suggest that DocBook isn't the greatest format. If
> we stored the docs in markdown it would be easier for people to
> edit/contribute (they could view the docs
Hi,
Has this moved on at all? Thinking about it a bit more (off and on) I'm
inclined to suggest that DocBook isn't the greatest format. If we stored the
docs in markdown it would be easier for people to edit/contribute (they could
view the docs and make changes in github without having to compi
<3
On 21.06.2012, at 22:25, Noah Slater wrote:
> I am publicly taking ownership of this project, and will run point on it.
>
> I've not contributed code to CouchDB for a while, and my free personal time
> is scarce, but I am in the best position to do this work. I know Autotools
> and DocBook
I am publicly taking ownership of this project, and will run point on it.
I've not contributed code to CouchDB for a while, and my free personal time is
scarce, but I am in the best position to do this work. I know Autotools and
DocBook very well, and have integrated them in the past.
On 21 J
Hi,
> This has nothing to do with docbook, we generate HTML and we can link to that
> in Futon, I don't think we want to generate the Futon-docs part in docbook,
> but happy to be proven wrong. I think it'd be easer to make a docs.html in
> futon that keeps the header and sidebar and just shows
On Jun 21, 2012, at 17:01 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2012, at 16:55 , Simon Metson wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>> Sorry, my bad, it actually ships with Macs as far as I can tell. I updated
>>> the README.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Cool.
>>> Did you mean to do `make dev && utils/run` or is `./bin/couch
On Jun 21, 2012, at 16:55 , Simon Metson wrote:
> Hey,
>> Sorry, my bad, it actually ships with Macs as far as I can tell. I updated
>> the README.
>>
>>
>
> Cool.
>> Did you mean to do `make dev && utils/run` or is `./bin/couchdb` done in a
>> `make install` target?
> It was done in the ma
Hey,
> Sorry, my bad, it actually ships with Macs as far as I can tell. I updated
> the README.
>
>
Cool.
> Did you mean to do `make dev && utils/run` or is `./bin/couchdb` done in a
> `make install` target?
It was done in the make install target. make dev && utils/run works.
>
> > * did a
On Jun 21, 2012, at 16:18 , Paul Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback, Paul.
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2012, at 15:16 , Paul Davis wrote:
>>
>>> I did some poking through of that docs branch the other day. I'll try
>>> and summarize my thoughts
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, Paul.
>
> On Jun 21, 2012, at 15:16 , Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> I did some poking through of that docs branch the other day. I'll try
>> and summarize my thoughts but I preface this with the fact I've been
>> up all night
Hi Simon,
thanks for the feedback!
On Jun 21, 2012, at 14:27 , Simon Metson wrote:
> I've been prodding Jan's docs branch this morning. Some successes, some
> fails.
>
> * I can't install xsltproc via brew (as in the docs README):
>
> $ brew install xsltproc
> Error: No available formula
Thanks for the feedback, Paul.
On Jun 21, 2012, at 15:16 , Paul Davis wrote:
> I did some poking through of that docs branch the other day. I'll try
> and summarize my thoughts but I preface this with the fact I've been
> up all night debugging.
>
> The biggest technical issues I see is that I r
I did some poking through of that docs branch the other day. I'll try
and summarize my thoughts but I preface this with the fact I've been
up all night debugging.
The biggest technical issues I see is that I really dislike having the
non-autotools build inside the autotools build. From the discuss
I've been prodding Jan's docs branch this morning. Some successes, some fails.
* I can't install xsltproc via brew (as in the docs README):
$ brew install xsltproc
Error: No available formula for xsltproc
* Regardless of that I got the docs to build, and made a PDF/bunch of html
files.
*
On Jun 17, 2012, at 15:05 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2012, at 12:47 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2012, at 12:12 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>
>>> Same repo, some news:
>>>
>>> - updated NOTICE
>>> - added minimal css styling to make it not look ass
>>> - made make distcheck
On Jun 17, 2012, at 12:47 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2012, at 12:12 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
>> Same repo, some news:
>>
>> - updated NOTICE
>> - added minimal css styling to make it not look ass
>> - made make distcheck pass* (wooo!)
>> - linked the per-chapter build in Futon instead
On Jun 17, 2012, at 12:12 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Same repo, some news:
>
> - updated NOTICE
> - added minimal css styling to make it not look ass
> - made make distcheck pass* (wooo!)
> - linked the per-chapter build in Futon instead of the full-page.**
>
> As far as I can see, this is good to
Same repo, some news:
- updated NOTICE
- added minimal css styling to make it not look ass
- made make distcheck pass* (wooo!)
- linked the per-chapter build in Futon instead of the full-page.**
As far as I can see, this is good to go into master.
There's plenty of room for improvement:
-
Hey all,
remember that big commit I made to a new docs branch with all
the .jar files in it and whatnot? Well, I've cleaned it up and
pushed it to GitHub:
https://github.com/janl/couchdb/tree/docs
The README states all prerequisites.
I have ripped all the .jar files out of the repo and put th
47 matches
Mail list logo
