From: Martin A. <opt...@gm...> - 2011-07-09 09:17:12
|
On 9 Jul 2011, at 02:14, Alex Clark <ac...@ac...> wrote: > On 7/8/11 6:50 PM, Dylan Jay wrote: >> On 09/07/2011, at 12:25 AM, Alex Clark<ac...@ac...> wrote: >> >>> On 7/8/11 4:21 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 08:24, Dylan Jay<dy...@dy...> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 08/07/2011, at 5:15 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 02:02, Dylan Jay<dy...@dy...> 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 * Out of date c-docs on plone.org/documentation (because no one 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 * Out of date c-docs on collective-docs.plone.org because your recent 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 |