Menu
▾
▴
plone-docs — Discussion about the Plone documentation
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(83) |
Nov
(55) |
Dec
(29) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
Jan
(29) |
Feb
(31) |
Mar
(37) |
Apr
(6) |
May
(25) |
Jun
(36) |
Jul
(19) |
Aug
(7) |
Sep
(17) |
Oct
(40) |
Nov
(33) |
Dec
(44) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(20) |
Feb
(15) |
Mar
(22) |
Apr
(17) |
May
(24) |
Jun
(19) |
Jul
(15) |
Aug
(25) |
Sep
(79) |
Oct
(35) |
Nov
(112) |
Dec
(31) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(110) |
Feb
(40) |
Mar
(35) |
Apr
(37) |
May
(24) |
Jun
(10) |
Jul
(8) |
Aug
(54) |
Sep
(23) |
Oct
(17) |
Nov
(35) |
Dec
(41) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(72) |
Feb
(184) |
Mar
(57) |
Apr
(83) |
May
(38) |
Jun
(44) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(60) |
Sep
(33) |
Oct
(75) |
Nov
(227) |
Dec
(89) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(46) |
Feb
(27) |
Mar
(28) |
Apr
(33) |
May
(94) |
Jun
(33) |
Jul
(48) |
Aug
(24) |
Sep
(57) |
Oct
(32) |
Nov
(32) |
Dec
(23) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(65) |
Feb
(51) |
Mar
(30) |
Apr
(111) |
May
(19) |
Jun
(31) |
Jul
(114) |
Aug
(57) |
Sep
(26) |
Oct
(72) |
Nov
(252) |
Dec
(98) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(100) |
Feb
(37) |
Mar
(89) |
Apr
(57) |
May
(81) |
Jun
(27) |
Jul
(27) |
Aug
(42) |
Sep
(25) |
Oct
(45) |
Nov
(21) |
Dec
(72) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(74) |
Feb
(23) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(47) |
May
(64) |
Jun
(7) |
Jul
(19) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(26) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(15) |
Dec
(28) |
| 2011 |
Jan
|
Feb
(9) |
Mar
(7) |
Apr
(8) |
May
(13) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(35) |
Aug
(21) |
Sep
(9) |
Oct
(16) |
Nov
(6) |
Dec
(3) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(10) |
Feb
(6) |
Mar
(7) |
Apr
(26) |
May
(2) |
Jun
(7) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(6) |
Oct
(15) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(2) |
| 2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
(3) |
| 2014 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(2) |
Apr
(9) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(4) |
|
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 |
|
From: Alex C. <ac...@ac...> - 2011-07-09 01:15:06
|
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). > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> Plone-docs mailing list >> Plo...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 |
|
From: Dylan J. <dy...@dy...> - 2011-07-08 23:19:21
|
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. 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? > > > > >> >> 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 > > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Plone-docs mailing list > Plo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs |
|
From: Alex C. <ac...@ac...> - 2011-07-08 14:25:23
|
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. > > 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 -- Alex Clark · http://aclark.net |
|
From: Alex C. <ac...@ac...> - 2011-07-08 14:21:53
|
On 7/8/11 3:12 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: > > > On 8 Jul 2011, at 04:01, Alex Clark<ac...@ac...> wrote: > >> Hi Jon, >> >> On 7/7/11 10:19 PM, Jon Stahl wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:02 PM, 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. >>> >>> 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, >> >> >> That has been accomplished via funnelweb, it's just not automated/kept >> up to date yet: >> >> * >> http://plone.org/documentation/manual/plone-community-developer-documentation >> >> >> and have that be the One True Single >>> Source for all this great documentation work. >> >> >> Inasmuch as the goal is to synchronize the Sphinx documentation daily >> with PHC content, plone.org/documentation is the One True Single Source. >> >> Personally, I don't like reading docs in PHC on plone.org so I created >> collective-docs.plone.org to host the "pure" Sphinx docs. I agree this >> creates confusion, but I believe that it can be mitigated via some >> "portal message" style notification about the multi-homed nature of the >> c-docs in any Sphinx hosted instance (as well as some notice about >> "imported via funnelweb" inside >> plone.org/documentation/manual/plone-community-developer-documentation) >> > > This sounds to me a singularly bad idea. Having the same things in two places and not putting our documentation on our primary (Plone!) website sends confused, not very reassuring messages. No amount of warning message will mitigate that. > > If you personally don't like using plone(.org), I think you should run a local build of the Sphinx docs, not use plone.org for this purpose. Agreed. I actually regret doing it that way but at the time I wanted the "awesome" Sphinx docs to get some publicity. And in fact, though a bad idea it seemed to be well received (and I think you can mitigate it to some extent). Anyway, it's decomm'd now. I'll make c-docs.plone.org redir to plone.org/documentation, too. Thanks! Alex > > >> Since you chimed in, can I interest you in trying to push this along? >> >> * http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/11771 >> >> Would like the board to formally OK my next steps, and I've not heard >> back from Cal. >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> Plone-docs mailing list >> Plo...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > Plo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs -- Alex Clark · http://aclark.net |
|
From: Martin A. <opt...@gm...> - 2011-07-08 08:21:47
|
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. Martin |
|
From: Dylan J. <dy...@dy...> - 2011-07-08 07:47:01
|
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. > > Martin |
|
From: Martin A. <opt...@gm...> - 2011-07-08 07:15:27
|
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. Martin |
|
From: Martin A. <opt...@gm...> - 2011-07-08 07:13:00
|
On 8 Jul 2011, at 04:01, Alex Clark <ac...@ac...> wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 7/7/11 10:19 PM, Jon Stahl wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:02 PM, 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. >> >> 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, > > > That has been accomplished via funnelweb, it's just not automated/kept > up to date yet: > > * > http://plone.org/documentation/manual/plone-community-developer-documentation > > > and have that be the One True Single >> Source for all this great documentation work. > > > Inasmuch as the goal is to synchronize the Sphinx documentation daily > with PHC content, plone.org/documentation is the One True Single Source. > > Personally, I don't like reading docs in PHC on plone.org so I created > collective-docs.plone.org to host the "pure" Sphinx docs. I agree this > creates confusion, but I believe that it can be mitigated via some > "portal message" style notification about the multi-homed nature of the > c-docs in any Sphinx hosted instance (as well as some notice about > "imported via funnelweb" inside > plone.org/documentation/manual/plone-community-developer-documentation) > This sounds to me a singularly bad idea. Having the same things in two places and not putting our documentation on our primary (Plone!) website sends confused, not very reassuring messages. No amount of warning message will mitigate that. If you personally don't like using plone(.org), I think you should run a local build of the Sphinx docs, not use plone.org for this purpose. > Since you chimed in, can I interest you in trying to push this along? > > * http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/11771 > > Would like the board to formally OK my next steps, and I've not heard > back from Cal. > > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Plone-docs mailing list > Plo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs |
|
From: Dylan J. <dy...@dy...> - 2011-07-08 05:50:36
|
On 08/07/2011, at 2:50 PM, Alex Clark wrote: > On 7/7/11 11:05 PM, Alex Clark wrote: >> 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<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. >>>> >>>> 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. > > It worked!!! We now have (almost) instantaneous updates to the c-docs > documentation (as published on readthedocs.org) via github service > hooks. > > * c-docs moved to github: > http://dev.plone.org/collective/changeset/242079/collective.developermanual > > * Github repo: https://github.com/collective/ > collective.developermanual > > * Readthedocs: http://collective-docs.readthedocs.org > > * Old c-docs updated: http://collective-docs.plone.org > Very cool. Except none of the autodoc includes worked http://collective-docs.readthedocs.org/en/latest/components/genericsetup.html#plone-genericsetup-reference How do we get docs from the eggs in there? |
|
From: Dylan J. <dy...@dy...> - 2011-07-08 05:15:37
|
On 08/07/2011, at 2:55 PM, Alex Clark wrote: > On 7/8/11 12:53 AM, Dylan Jay wrote: >> On 08/07/2011, at 2:33 PM, Alex Clark wrote: >> >>> On 5/27/11 9:55 AM, Alex Clark wrote: >>>> On 5/27/11 8:10 AM, peter.seifert wrote: >>>>> Visiting http://api.plone.org I got: >>>>> Forbidden >>>>> You don't have permission to access / on this server. >>>>> >>>>> Is this deliberate or will the API-Overview return? >>>> >>>> >>>> Probably an oversight, please open a ticket: http://goo.gl/4Z2rp >>> >>> I don't know if you have opened a ticket, but I'm going to declare >>> api.plone.org dead. >>> >>> I've tried several times to get a "modern" build of the api docs >>> going, >>> but I always end up running into some epydoc conundrum. >>> >>> While I'm sure we can all agree the api docs generated by epydoc are >>> not >>> what you would expect to find in a useful set of api docs, they >>> still do >>> provide some value to some people. >>> >>> So, I'd be in favor of resurrecting them at some point, but I'm >>> not in >>> any hurry to do so. >>> >>> >>> (Clearly we need to fix "forbidden" and redir somewhere, or put up a >>> message, or something.) >> >> I'd suggest that we just include parts of the api into collective- >> docs >> via the sphinx autodoc plugin. Instead of being comprehensive we can >> start to include them in the parts of the manual it's appropriate. > > Cool, +1. Btw I had to disable collective.sphinx.includedoc to get > readthedocs.org to fly. Why didn't this work? I see a release on PyPI… I didn't end up using it for any of the code docs I included so it's not needed. I put the docs as module level comments and used autodoc plugin instead. > > > Alex > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: http://plone.293351.n2.nabble.com/http-api-plone-org-returns-forbidden-tp6410815p6410815.html >>>>> Sent from the Documentation Team mailing list archive at >>>>> Nabble.com. >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. >>>>> With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, >>>>> you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. >>>>> Download your free trial now. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Plone-docs mailing list >>> Plo...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > Plone-docs mailing list > Plo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs |
|
From: Alex C. <ac...@ac...> - 2011-07-08 05:10:32
|
On 7/8/11 12:58 AM, Dylan Jay wrote: > > On 08/07/2011, at 2:50 PM, Alex Clark wrote: > >> On 7/7/11 11:05 PM, Alex Clark wrote: >>> 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<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. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >> >> It worked!!! We now have (almost) instantaneous updates to the c-docs >> documentation (as published on readthedocs.org) via github service >> hooks. >> >> * c-docs moved to github: >> http://dev.plone.org/collective/changeset/242079/collective.developermanual >> >> * Github repo: https://github.com/collective/ >> collective.developermanual >> >> * Readthedocs: http://collective-docs.readthedocs.org >> >> * Old c-docs updated: http://collective-docs.plone.org > > btw, can we call it the plonedevdocs or plonedevelopersmanual or > somesuch on readthedocs? Collective-docs doesn't make much sense to > the outside world. Maybe :-). I'm not opposed to changing the name. But I'm not convinced there is a better alternative. We currently have several public facing names for the c-docs: 1. Plone Community Managed Developer Manual 2. Plone Developer Manual (from the sphinx source/introduction title, which I've just fixed to be the same as #1) 3. Collective docs 4. Plone Community Developer Documentation (from http://plone.org/documentation/manual/plone-community-developer-documentation) But really, c-docs work IMHO opinion, both because there is some "Collective" brand recognition in the Python world now, and the docs do in fact live in the collective. Maybe Jon Stahl or Martin or somebody will give us some tips. Since we know we want these docs to ultimately live inside plone.org/documentation (as Plone Community Developer Documentation ) then perhaps the collective URL should be: plone-community-developer-documentation.readthedocs.org But that's a mouthful. Still, I'd consider it (I don't particularly like: plonedevdocs or plonedevelopersmanual). Alex > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 |
|
From: Alex C. <ac...@ac...> - 2011-07-08 05:00:23
|
On 7/8/11 12:53 AM, Dylan Jay wrote: > On 08/07/2011, at 2:33 PM, Alex Clark wrote: > >> On 5/27/11 9:55 AM, Alex Clark wrote: >>> On 5/27/11 8:10 AM, peter.seifert wrote: >>>> Visiting http://api.plone.org I got: >>>> Forbidden >>>> You don't have permission to access / on this server. >>>> >>>> Is this deliberate or will the API-Overview return? >>> >>> >>> Probably an oversight, please open a ticket: http://goo.gl/4Z2rp >> >> I don't know if you have opened a ticket, but I'm going to declare >> api.plone.org dead. >> >> I've tried several times to get a "modern" build of the api docs >> going, >> but I always end up running into some epydoc conundrum. >> >> While I'm sure we can all agree the api docs generated by epydoc are >> not >> what you would expect to find in a useful set of api docs, they >> still do >> provide some value to some people. >> >> So, I'd be in favor of resurrecting them at some point, but I'm not in >> any hurry to do so. >> >> >> (Clearly we need to fix "forbidden" and redir somewhere, or put up a >> message, or something.) > > I'd suggest that we just include parts of the api into collective-docs > via the sphinx autodoc plugin. Instead of being comprehensive we can > start to include them in the parts of the manual it's appropriate. Cool, +1. Btw I had to disable collective.sphinx.includedoc to get readthedocs.org to fly. Why didn't this work? I see a release on PyPI… Alex > > >> >> >> Alex >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: http://plone.293351.n2.nabble.com/http-api-plone-org-returns-forbidden-tp6410815p6410815.html >>>> Sent from the Documentation Team mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. >>>> With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, >>>> you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. >>>> Download your free trial now. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> Plone-docs mailing list >> Plo...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 |
|
From: Dylan J. <dy...@dy...> - 2011-07-08 04:58:24
|
On 08/07/2011, at 2:50 PM, Alex Clark wrote: > On 7/7/11 11:05 PM, Alex Clark wrote: >> 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<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. >>>> >>>> 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. > > It worked!!! We now have (almost) instantaneous updates to the c-docs > documentation (as published on readthedocs.org) via github service > hooks. > > * c-docs moved to github: > http://dev.plone.org/collective/changeset/242079/collective.developermanual > > * Github repo: https://github.com/collective/ > collective.developermanual > > * Readthedocs: http://collective-docs.readthedocs.org > > * Old c-docs updated: http://collective-docs.plone.org btw, can we call it the plonedevdocs or plonedevelopersmanual or somesuch on readthedocs? Collective-docs doesn't make much sense to the outside world. |
|
From: Dylan J. <dy...@dy...> - 2011-07-08 04:53:27
|
On 08/07/2011, at 2:33 PM, Alex Clark wrote: > On 5/27/11 9:55 AM, Alex Clark wrote: >> On 5/27/11 8:10 AM, peter.seifert wrote: >>> Visiting http://api.plone.org I got: >>> Forbidden >>> You don't have permission to access / on this server. >>> >>> Is this deliberate or will the API-Overview return? >> >> >> Probably an oversight, please open a ticket: http://goo.gl/4Z2rp > > I don't know if you have opened a ticket, but I'm going to declare > api.plone.org dead. > > I've tried several times to get a "modern" build of the api docs > going, > but I always end up running into some epydoc conundrum. > > While I'm sure we can all agree the api docs generated by epydoc are > not > what you would expect to find in a useful set of api docs, they > still do > provide some value to some people. > > So, I'd be in favor of resurrecting them at some point, but I'm not in > any hurry to do so. > > > (Clearly we need to fix "forbidden" and redir somewhere, or put up a > message, or something.) I'd suggest that we just include parts of the api into collective-docs via the sphinx autodoc plugin. Instead of being comprehensive we can start to include them in the parts of the manual it's appropriate. > > > Alex > > > >> >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: http://plone.293351.n2.nabble.com/http-api-plone-org-returns-forbidden-tp6410815p6410815.html >>> Sent from the Documentation Team mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. >>> With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, >>> you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. >>> Download your free trial now. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 >> >> > > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Plone-docs mailing list > Plo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs |
|
From: Alex C. <ac...@ac...> - 2011-07-08 04:51:08
|
On 7/7/11 11:05 PM, Alex Clark wrote: > 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<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. >>> >>> 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. It worked!!! We now have (almost) instantaneous updates to the c-docs documentation (as published on readthedocs.org) via github service hooks. * c-docs moved to github: http://dev.plone.org/collective/changeset/242079/collective.developermanual * Github repo: https://github.com/collective/collective.developermanual * Readthedocs: http://collective-docs.readthedocs.org * Old c-docs updated: http://collective-docs.plone.org Alex > > > 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 |
|
From: Alex C. <ac...@ac...> - 2011-07-08 04:34:22
|
On 5/27/11 9:55 AM, Alex Clark wrote: > On 5/27/11 8:10 AM, peter.seifert wrote: >> Visiting http://api.plone.org I got: >> Forbidden >> You don't have permission to access / on this server. >> >> Is this deliberate or will the API-Overview return? > > > Probably an oversight, please open a ticket: http://goo.gl/4Z2rp I don't know if you have opened a ticket, but I'm going to declare api.plone.org dead. I've tried several times to get a "modern" build of the api docs going, but I always end up running into some epydoc conundrum. While I'm sure we can all agree the api docs generated by epydoc are not what you would expect to find in a useful set of api docs, they still do provide some value to some people. So, I'd be in favor of resurrecting them at some point, but I'm not in any hurry to do so. (Clearly we need to fix "forbidden" and redir somewhere, or put up a message, or something.) Alex > > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Peter >> >> -- >> View this message in context: http://plone.293351.n2.nabble.com/http-api-plone-org-returns-forbidden-tp6410815p6410815.html >> Sent from the Documentation Team mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. >> With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, >> you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. >> Download your free trial now. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 > > -- Alex Clark · http://aclark.net |
|
From: Alex C. <ac...@ac...> - 2011-07-08 03:10:17
|
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<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. >> >> 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 |
|
From: Alex C. <ac...@ac...> - 2011-07-08 03:01:50
|
Hi Jon, On 7/7/11 10:19 PM, Jon Stahl wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:02 PM, 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. > > 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, That has been accomplished via funnelweb, it's just not automated/kept up to date yet: * http://plone.org/documentation/manual/plone-community-developer-documentation and have that be the One True Single > Source for all this great documentation work. Inasmuch as the goal is to synchronize the Sphinx documentation daily with PHC content, plone.org/documentation is the One True Single Source. Personally, I don't like reading docs in PHC on plone.org so I created collective-docs.plone.org to host the "pure" Sphinx docs. I agree this creates confusion, but I believe that it can be mitigated via some "portal message" style notification about the multi-homed nature of the c-docs in any Sphinx hosted instance (as well as some notice about "imported via funnelweb" inside plone.org/documentation/manual/plone-community-developer-documentation) Since you chimed in, can I interest you in trying to push this along? * http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/11771 Would like the board to formally OK my next steps, and I've not heard back from Cal. 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 |
|
From: Dylan J. <dy...@dy...> - 2011-07-08 02:57:03
|
On 08/07/2011, at 12:19 PM, Jon Stahl wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:02 PM, 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. > > 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 |
|
From: Jon S. <jon...@gm...> - 2011-07-08 02:19:09
|
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:02 PM, 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. 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. :jon |
|
From: Dylan J. <dy...@dy...> - 2011-07-08 01:31:23
|
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. > > > > Alex > > > > > [1] Either that or it's too brittle. I can't remember which. Note: > I've > never actually run bin/toplone on plone.org, but I do understand now > how > it is supposed to work, so I plan to explore some cronomation of > this at > which time I'll try to resolve any issues that may have been > occurring. > > [2] Yes, I'm that lazy and stubborn. :-) If anyone reading this > wants to > poke at it, and can get "make html" in > deus:/srv/collective-docs.plone.org working (presumably by installing > the includedocs module in whichever Python is being used, please do!) > > >> >> >> --- >> Dylan Jay >> Technical Solutions Manager >> PretaWeb: reducing duplication in the government web. >> P: +612 80819071 | M: +61421477460 | twitter.com/djay75 | >> linkedin.com/ >> in/djay75 >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content >> authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image >> Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev > > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Plone-docs mailing list > Plo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs |
|
From: Alex C. <ac...@ac...> - 2011-07-07 01:40:03
|
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. 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). * 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). 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. Alex [1] Either that or it's too brittle. I can't remember which. Note: I've never actually run bin/toplone on plone.org, but I do understand now how it is supposed to work, so I plan to explore some cronomation of this at which time I'll try to resolve any issues that may have been occurring. [2] Yes, I'm that lazy and stubborn. :-) If anyone reading this wants to poke at it, and can get "make html" in deus:/srv/collective-docs.plone.org working (presumably by installing the includedocs module in whichever Python is being used, please do!) > > > --- > Dylan Jay > Technical Solutions Manager > PretaWeb: reducing duplication in the government web. > P: +612 80819071 | M: +61421477460 | twitter.com/djay75 | linkedin.com/ > in/djay75 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content > authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image > Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev -- Alex Clark · http://aclark.net |
|
From: Dylan J. <dy...@dy...> - 2011-06-19 12:01:06
|
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? --- Dylan Jay Technical Solutions Manager PretaWeb: reducing duplication in the government web. P: +612 80819071 | M: +61421477460 | twitter.com/djay75 | linkedin.com/ in/djay75 |
|
From: Alex C. <ac...@ac...> - 2011-05-27 13:56:19
|
On 5/27/11 8:10 AM, peter.seifert wrote: > Visiting http://api.plone.org I got: > Forbidden > You don't have permission to access / on this server. > > Is this deliberate or will the API-Overview return? Probably an oversight, please open a ticket: http://goo.gl/4Z2rp > > Thanks, > > Peter > > -- > View this message in context: http://plone.293351.n2.nabble.com/http-api-plone-org-returns-forbidden-tp6410815p6410815.html > Sent from the Documentation Team mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. > With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, > you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. > Download your free trial now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 -- Alex Clark · http://aclark.net |
173 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
