forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@indexgeo.com.au>
Subject Re: sync various descriptions of Forrest
Date Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:47:33 GMT
Jeff Turner wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > I have noticed that Forrest is described inconsistently
> > in various documents. So i have gathered together the
> > descriptions to start refinement. I think that we need a
> > longish description (refine what we have at A) and
> > also develop a one-liner.
> 
> Excellent idea.  It's the first thing users see, sent out with
> every project announcement.. well worth polishing.
> 
> > The long description also needs to be more clear that
> > the intent is broader than Apache.
> > 
> > We are going to need to make an official release of Forrest
> > soon (not that i am taking on a release manager's job).
> > A good clear description will be needed for that.
> > 
> > Perhaps we should start again and get down some dot-points,
> > then develop a description from them:
> > * Based on robust Apache software, practices and experience
> 
> One would hope that every Apache project has that quality.
> Is Forrest any different that it's worth mentioning?
> 
> > * Can be applied to any ASF project
> > * Can be applied to your own private project
> > * based on XML/XSLT
> > * many modes of operation (shbat, forrestbot, webapp - but
> > not using those techy terms)
> > * management of local and remote website production
> > * ... please add more ...
> > 
> > We also need to fine-tune the three main documents that
> > describe Forrest (A, B, D). Forrest has progressed a lot
> > and they need all review. I am happy to help out a bit.
> > 
> > I see that Forrest promises more than it is currently
> > delivering, e.g. says that is for management of projects,
> > provides statistics and metrics, makes comparison with
> > Sourceforge etc. I think that this is dangerous and
> > some of these should be moved to dreams.xml
> 
> +1
> 
> > Anyway here is what we have now ...
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > A) xml-forrest/src/documentation/content/xdocs/index.xml
> > B) xml-forrest/index.html
> > C) xml-forrest/module.xml
> > (The docs A, B, and C have basically the same intro.)
> > ------
> >  Forrest provides a robust technological infrastructure for
> >  open software development for the Apache Software Foundation
> >  based on ASF software, ASF practices and experience, and
> >  modern software design principles.
> 
> Having read that, is a potential user _any_ closer to knowing what
> Forrest actually is? To me it seems almost meaningless.  "robust
> technical infrastructure".. an operating system perhaps? :)
> 
> How about:
> 
>   "Forrest is an XML-oriented project documentation system based on
>   Apache Cocoon.  It contains XML schemas (DTDs), XSLT stylesheets,
>   images and other resources used to render a project's XML source files
>   into a website."

Better. Here is my version.

 "Forrest is an XML-oriented project documentation framework
 based on Apache Cocoon, providing XSLT stylesheets and schema,
 images and other resources. Forrest uses these to render the
 XML source content into a website via command-line, robot, or
 a dynamic web application."

--David

> > --------------------------------------------------
> > D) xml-forrest/src/documentation/content/xdocs/primer.xml
> > (This is the first sentence of the "What is Forrest" section.
> > It goes on to describe with more detail and some of those
> > words will be useful for a top-level description.)
> > ------
> >  Forrest is a framework that supports the cross-project
> >  generation and management of development project websites
> >  using Cocoon as its XML publishing framework.
> 
>   "It not only provides access to project documentation, but also to
>   other types of information that open source developers depend upon
>   daily: source code repositories, mailing lists, contact info and the
>   like. It aggregates all these resources and publishes them on a regular
>   basis to a website"
> 
> Which isn't exactly untrue, but not very true either.
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> 
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Other issues
> > ------------
> > 1) Try view-source of B) xml-forrest/index.html
> > I was horrified by the HTML source there. We need to
> > make it clear that this mess was not built by Forrest,
> > then proceed to clean it up.
> > 
> > 2) Should we be referring to "ASF" or "Apache"?
> > 
> > 3) Do we need to mention the actual technologies (such
> > as Cocoon) in a top-level description?
> > 
> > --David
> > 



Mime
View raw message