Re: kb -> c.developermanual

On 7/7/11 10:56 PM, Dylan Jay wrote:
> 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 * Out of date c-docs on plone.org/documentation (because no one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 * Out of date c-docs on collective-docs.plone.org because your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.


Well, it's currently broken, in that it can't be updated without 
installing some Sphinx module in Python (I think). But other than that I 
still like idea of a "sphinx home" for the c-docs.

> - a new mirror of the collective-docs to go somewhere like http://readthedocs.org/docs/plone-developers-manual

Yeah, if the readthedocs.org test works out, then c-docs.plone.org could 
be redirected there. Or it could be redirected to p.org/documentation. I 
don't have any strong preference wrt to that.


Alex



>
>
>
>
>>
>> :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


-- 
Alex Clark · http://aclark.net


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