> Do we think the current docbook format "official" docs are a=20
> good way =20
> of distributing stuff.
> I personally think yes, and that "offical" documentation makes sense =20
> living in SVN as docbook, with contributed stuff, faq and work in =20
> progress in the wiki.
> I am a little worried about the complexity of the tool chain needed =20
> though. I'd love to be able to do everything in textmate or similar.
> What do the rest of us think?
I also like the idea of "official" documentation being somewhere safe
and untouchable by the great wide world - we're under a certain
obligation (in as much as any Open Source project is) to make sure our
documentation is as correct as possible. It's as important as being
sure our code is as correct as possible.
That said, I enjoy using the wiki to work on it - formatting is a
breeze, I can concentrate on content, and it's available immediately for
anyone to see and use (especially important for work in progress). =20
So, probably something in SVN which is updated for a release, but which
is populated (manually, with some level of verification) from wiki
content. IN fact, large portion of it can/should be copied/pasted
directly from the Wiki. =20
My "New_documentation" page is kinda heading towards a book type format
(intro, expand, expand again, conclude), which I'd be keen to see
becoming our "official" documentation. Does anyone know if there is some
easy way to suck stuff out of the wiki into some other format which can
then be turned into a PDF/HTML/Format du jour?
Attention: The information contained in this message and/or attachments
from AgResearch Limited is intended only for the persons or entities
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipients is prohibited by AgResearch
Limited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the