Re: Proposal to create multiple PHCs inside a top level /documenation folder

On 20/05/2010 21:51, Israel Saeta Pérez wrote:
> Plone Documentation is not a stalled nor a struggling project. We're
> making constant progress in several areas. I can say that documenting
> Plone 4 has been an important success, with only 2 PLIPs left (I'll have
> to lean on some people) and an User Manual with new Sunburst screenshots
> (something that requires a lot of mundane work). We're also preparing
> videos for the User Manual (which had not been updated since Plone 2)
> and an Installation Guide.
>
>
>    
Indeed, this is very much due to Israel's hard work. He has taken 
responsibility for carrying the documentation work forward by committing 
time to managing the process and actually doing the basic work. Given 
his assumption of responsibility I also think that his views should be 
given particular weight and respect.

> Most of our documentation will apply to both Plone 3 and 4 (and even
> 2.5). The parts only applying to Plone 4 have been marked appropriately,
> either as a whole like the Plone 4 User Manual, or specifically
> mentioning so in the associated paragraph. We are looking for special
> styles to tag version-specific stuff so it can be easily recognizable.
>    
This is a simple, pragmatic solution which enables us to get on with the 
core job of pulling the documentation into shape, following the plans 
which the documentation team has put together over the last 18 months.

>> I am starting to feel like that satisfies the most number of folks and has
>> the least number of drawbacks:
>>
>> - current /documentation can be "frozen" in /documentation/release/3.3.5
>> - Israel, Anne, et al can work in /documentation/develop/3.3.6
>> - Israel, Anne, et al can work in /documentation/develop/4.0
>> - Israel, Anne, et al can work in /documentation/develop/5.0
>>
>> If anyone cares, we can go backwards and create a /documentation/release/2.5.5
>> that is a copy of 3.3.5, with all the content not marked 3 deleted.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>      
>
> This wouldn't work, since current documentation applies to both Plone 3
> and Plone 4. As you can see, the process is not stalled. :)
>
> If we copied and moved the documentation as you suggest, then if I
> wanted to document something present in both Plone 4.0 and 3.3.6, I
> would have to update the docs in both areas, which would mean double
> work. This is one of the strongest points I have against your proposal,
> and what makes me dismiss it now.
>
> If there are problems to identify which Plone version a certain document
> applies to, what we have to do is to improve how do we present this
> information visually, not to duplicate content and work.
>    
I agree with Israel, from where I stand, this is an unworkable 
suggestion which makes me deeply unhappy. I think its unlikely I'd be 
able to participate further in documentation on plone.org in that scenario.
> You can take a look at https://dev.plone.org/plone/report/8 and pick any
> task, or garden them.
>    
I intend to add to these over the weekend, if anyone would like to join me.

Best wishes

Anne

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Plone-docs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs

begin:vcard
fn:Anne Bowtell
n:Bowtell;Anne
email;internet:[email protected]
tel;work:+44 (0)1865 882829
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard