directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: 2.0.0-M3 roadmap and future evolutions ...
Date Wed, 17 Aug 2011 09:47:01 GMT
On 8/17/11 11:12 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Stefan Seelmann<>wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<>
>> wrote:
>>> Last, not least, we need to improve the kerberos documentation. Many
>> users
>>> complain about it. The truth is that we fixed some blocking issues those
>>> last weeks, bugs that were killing our implementation as a valid
>> candidate
>>> for a production kerberos server. But bugs are bugs, we can fix them.
>> OTOH,
>>> with a pathetic documentation, we can't expect to have users testing the
>>> kerberos server, and giving us some feedback about problems they found in
>>> the code. Sadly, we need some workforce to deal with this problem...
>> I totally agree with that point. I played with Kerberos the last weeks
>> so I see it as my duty to contribute some documentation. But I'm
>> unsure what documentation system we should use. Felix did a great job
>> and moved all confluence pages to Docbook. But I know that at least
>> you (sorry, I won't blame you ;-) don't like Docbook XML. So should we
>> switch back to confluence?
> The nice thing about docbook is that always us to generate any target and
> manipulate formats with style sheets. I think it's idea even though it's
> heavy. We just need a nice tool that allows us to edit docbook in a WYSIWYG
> editor. This way one need not deal with XML directly.

I spent hours finding such hypothetical tools, and tested many of them. 
They are all crap. really.

The fact that we need docbook format for our documentation is not 
disputed here. I just say that we'd rather use a standard way to produce 
the doco, then we convert it to docbook later, using a tool to do so.

Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message