cocoon-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <>
Subject Re: Stages of Forrest Transition
Date Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:39:31 GMT
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 09:48:47AM -0500, Diana Shannon wrote:
> How should we transition? How about:
> 1. Set up live protoype Forrest environment (now happening)
> 	- work out remaining configuration issues
> 2. Set up separate Cocoon docs repo(s)
>    - decide what the repo will include (simply docs and/or tools)

Do you mean, commit a Forrest binary into cocoon-docs CVS?  Why not just
make a snaphot available for download, or let people run 'cvs update -r
stable' on Forrest to get a known-working version?

>    - copy both 2.1 and 2.0 docs and associated files into separate 
> modules/branches/repos. Maintain "old" doc build capability, as 
> currently functioning, in 2.1 and 2.0.

Sounds like a lot of work.. why go to all that effort to keep the old
system alive, if the Forrest system is 95% working?

Also, having XML in a separate cocoon-docs module is likely to trigger
the "out of sight, out of mind" syndrome.  Right now, when I change some
code (say, rename DefaultsMetaModule to DefaultsModule), I can simply
grep cocoon-2.1 and find all references to the old class in code *and*
docs, and update them.  With a separate module I'd probably forget, or
forget to 'cvs up' it.

>    - setup docs build capability for user docs and web site
>    - add static documentation (built by cocoon-docs repo with Forrest) 
> to both 2.0 and 2.1 repos

?! Do you mean, commit 10mb of generated HTML/PDF to cocoon-2.1?  I hope
not :)

(in wet blanket mode, and not seeing the forest for the trees:)

>    - setup mechanism to update (via automated cvs update?) static docs 
> in 2.0 and 2.1 repos. This removes the "burden" of doc-building from 
> code repos. Webapp samples can simply link to static doc files (copied 
> over during webapp build).
> 3. Remove xdoc, stylesheets, and dtds related to core documentation from 
> 2.0 and 2.1 repos.
> 4. Consider merging 2.0 and 2.1 into a single trunk (based on Andrew's 
> findings/protype)
> Thoughts?
> Diana

View raw message