Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.161.50 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4E4B8E15.3060603@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 11:47:01 +0200
From: Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: 2.0.0-M3 roadmap and future evolutions ...
References: <4E4A3315.8080307@gmail.com>
 <CAPz8h_Wu=qPfF821N2Ws-r4oiOm+0SAzREPgb-UFZwHCn_PHQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADwPi+HGtNChWEg0s849FcoQDwhY1_eFjqwE5C9NC6CiemK6bw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADwPi+HGtNChWEg0s849FcoQDwhY1_eFjqwE5C9NC6CiemK6bw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 8/17/11 11:12 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Stefan Seelmann<seelmann@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny<elecharny@gmail.com>
>> 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.

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com