Re: kb -> c.developermanual

On 08/07/2011, at 12:19 PM, Jon Stahl wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Dylan Jay <dylan-Q+/Sk2sTzaxWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/07/2011, at 11:39 AM, Alex Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> On 6/19/11 7:36 AM, Dylan Jay wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> There's lots of links in the collective developers manual to KB
>>>> articles. Is there any reason not to just import those documents
>>>> directly into the manual and remove the KB article?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> I'll state the obvious: because it may offend the KB article  
>>> author. I
>>> suspect you'd need to contact the author directly and ask where  
>>> they'd
>>> prefer their article to live.
>>
>> seems a shame as where we really want to go is non-repeated
>> documentation.
>> but I guess you're right, not worth coming up with a process until we
>> get manual publishing working.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Note: we've still got a "mess" on our hands wrt to collective docs.
>>> I am
>>> hoping to clean up and automate the inclusion of c-docs in plone.org
>>> as
>>> soon as someone from the board replies to this ticket:
>>>
>>> * https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/11771
>>>
>>>
>>> Right now we have:
>>>
>>> * Out of date c-docs on plone.org/documentation (because no one
>>> understands the upload process[1]). I'm now OK with fixing this
>>> (i.e. I
>>> know how to do it).
>>
>> I'm happy to fix any coding issues with the funnelweb import. Last
>> time I tried it was working.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> * Out of date c-docs on collective-docs.plone.org because your  
>>> recent
>>> changes added a Sphinx module that does not exist on deus  
>>> (includedocs
>>> IIRC).
>>
>> :) sorry about that. But will be worth it if all goes to plan and we
>> can kick start core devs into documenting their own work.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As I am not terribly interested in fixing deus[2], I've recently
>>> considered moving c-docs to github and publishing them to
>>> readthedocs.org (which moo has +1'd). But I still need to test.
>>
>> So replace collective-docs.plone.org with readthedocs? I think that's
>> a good idea.
>
> I'm not totally sure I'm up to speed with everything, but just wanted
> to restate that I hope the goal is still to integrate collective-docs
> into Plone.org/documentation, and have that be the One True Single
> Source for all this great documentation work.

yes absolutely.

and in addition to plone.org/documentation I think what's being  
proposed is
- collective-docs.plone.org to be decomissioned.
- a new mirror of the collective-docs to go somewhere like http://readthedocs.org/docs/plone-developers-manual




>
> :jon


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security 
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes 
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2