deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: [suggestion] - Documentation
Date Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:17:28 GMT
David, the CMS is already set up and running (in SVN [1]). We just need a bit more stylish
css. 

And you can perfectly create pdf docs out of markdown. 

Of course we can also use alternative formats. But to me this is like a colour preference
- markdown is supported out of the box and provides all needed options.

Shane, I don't think I bypassed anyone. We discussed this since 6 months and noone started
working on it. Thus I finally dropped a mail and then implemented it. I also got no stop mail
back then.
Honestly I really don't care which format we use, IF someone else is doing the work and others
can easily add documentation. 


LieGrue,
strub



[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/deltaspike/site/trunk/



----- Original Message -----
> From: David Blevins <david.blevins@gmail.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [suggestion] - Documentation
> 
>T he answer to both these questions really that the CMS creates 
> "websites", some details on that below
> 
> I'll note that the CMS is svn based -- maybe undesirable given the use of 
> git.
> 
> On Jul 24, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Shane Bryzak wrote:
> 
>>  Does the choice of Apache CMS for hosting documentation meet the following 
> requirements?
>> 
>>  1) Making available the documentation for previously released versions of 
> DeltaSpike.
> 
> If by "make available" the intention is browsable on the website, then 
> sure there are ways to handle that.
> 
>>  2) Making available the documentation in offline formats, such as HTML or 
> PDF available for download.
> 
> Certainly you can use the same source to generate non-website looking HTML.  
> Same goes for PDF.
> 
> You wouldn't be using the CMS to do this, but the CMS doesn't prevent 
> it.  It'd be something we setup ourselves and could be done via a CI server 
> or something done at release time.
> 
> Basically the CMS is a system that is for generate website html using the 
> following layout:
> 
> - content/<source-files-and-directories>
> - lib/<site-generating-perl-functions>
> - templates/<whatever-you-need-for-templates>
> 
> When something in 'content/' is updated, it will run it through lib/ 
> (which leverages templates/) and save the resulting html to disk and take care 
> of synching that html file from staging to production.
> 
> When something in 'lib/' or 'templates/' is updated, it pretends 
> as if everything in 'content/' has changed and performs the above step 
> on every source file.
> 
> You can organize the 'content/' dir however you want.  That could mean:
> 
> - content/v0.1/
> - content/v0.2/
> - content/current/
> 
> Where 'current' gets versioned on release.  Or anything at all.  Maybe 
> just:
> 
> - content/<wild-wild-west>
> 
> 
> So the short answer is there isn't anything there to prevent or help the two 
> points.
> 
> In terms of generating outside the CMS which is what would be needed for say, 
> turning many files into one file such as a zip of html or a PDF, it's up to 
> us.  There are projects that do it via buildbot.  Buildbot is not so much a CI 
> tool as it is "cron with a webUI" and also happens to have the ability 
> to be trigger by commits.
> 
> Really, you can get anything done with buildbot without much in the way of 
> restrictions.  It's a mediocre CI system and an amazing cron replacement.
> 
> 
> -David
> 

Mime
View raw message