Re: kb -> c.developermanual

On 9 Jul 2011, at 02:14, Alex Clark <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 7/8/11 6:50 PM, Dylan Jay wrote:
>> On 09/07/2011, at 12:25 AM, Alex Clark<[email protected]>  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 7/8/11 4:21 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 08:24, Dylan Jay<[email protected]>   wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 08/07/2011, at 5:15 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 02:02, Dylan Jay<[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 * Out of date c-docs on plone.org/documentation (because no one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 * Out of date c-docs on collective-docs.plone.org because your recent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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1, though we should link back to plone.org/documentation for more docs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1 on linking back to plone.org/documentation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> BTW, Alex wasn't suggesting removing the manual from plone.org/documentation. Just that he prefers not to read it there.
>>>> 
>>>> I know. But having it on another plone.org subdomain is really confusing and sends the wrong message. Syndicating to readthedocs is a nice idea, and does not send such a mixed message.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> +1. So to clarify collective-docs.plone.org should redir to
>>> plone.org/documentation… or leave it the way it is redir'ing to
>>> readthedocs.org.
>> 
>> Redir to readthedocs since people expect a sphinx layout.
> 
> Done.
> 
> 
>> 
>> But I would like to fix the issue of many many names for that manual.
>> Can we just merge the two plone developers manuals and call it that?
> 
> 
> This is what I was hoping Martin or someone would provide feedback for 
> here. "Collective docs" sounds right to me. And the URL is reasonable. 
> If we're going to make a change, I'm not sure what that change should be 
> (amongst all the options I listed yesterday).

Collective Docs is not a good name. It's meaningless to anyone not a seasoned Plone developer.

Plone Developer Manual is fine if we merge. If not, Plone Community-Contributed Development Documentation or similar may be fine.

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