Ralf,
I suspect that a lot of the people on this list aren't familiar with
the way we run the developer list, and that the whole business of
subject lines and voting is rather mystical. I'm not at all sure
that the same conventions - voting, at least - are really
appropriate here. Let's not go too fast, eh?
If there *are* any here that fall into that category, may I suggest
a peek at <http://dev.apache.org/>, which includes some background
that may or may not be useful.
That said..
I don't much care what the base format of the documentation is as
long as
o it can be maintained with a text editor on a dumb terminal
o the (or a) back-end produces HTML with which I'm happy
I'd rather not install another ten tons of cruft.. er,
single-purpose tools on my system. I'd be particularly happy with
something Perl-based (which I think your recommended tools already
are, Ralf). Perl rocks.
The current pile of documentation - our basic foundation here - is
the pages at <http://www.apache.org/>, including those under
/library/ and /docs/. What you see there are files with SSI
instructions in them, so comparable boilerplatibility would be nice.
If you want to get your hands on the source HTML files, see the
above-named URL and read the part about working with CVS snapshots.
The manual pages themselves are in CVS module apache/htdocs, and the
Apache site files are in CVS module apache-site.
One nice thing about the current arrangement is that the HTML files
at the above location are *very* easy to maintain - they're just
checked out from a CVS library. Any replacement system can only be
more complicated, but it *must* allow easy regeneration of the site
documents in HTML.
Also, I'm already working on the FAQ and making it
news.answers-ready, so that's another data-point. However,
conversion to that format, if not automatic, should be a simple
matter of Perl. I'd appreciate it if anyone wanting to do a
wholesale reorg of the FAQ would coordinate with me first. (I'm
including you, Ralf! ;-)
#ken :-)}
I suspect that a lot of the people on this list aren't familiar with
the way we run the developer list, and that the whole business of
subject lines and voting is rather mystical. I'm not at all sure
that the same conventions - voting, at least - are really
appropriate here. Let's not go too fast, eh?
If there *are* any here that fall into that category, may I suggest
a peek at <http://dev.apache.org/>, which includes some background
that may or may not be useful.
That said..
I don't much care what the base format of the documentation is as
long as
o it can be maintained with a text editor on a dumb terminal
o the (or a) back-end produces HTML with which I'm happy
I'd rather not install another ten tons of cruft.. er,
single-purpose tools on my system. I'd be particularly happy with
something Perl-based (which I think your recommended tools already
are, Ralf). Perl rocks.
The current pile of documentation - our basic foundation here - is
the pages at <http://www.apache.org/>, including those under
/library/ and /docs/. What you see there are files with SSI
instructions in them, so comparable boilerplatibility would be nice.
If you want to get your hands on the source HTML files, see the
above-named URL and read the part about working with CVS snapshots.
The manual pages themselves are in CVS module apache/htdocs, and the
Apache site files are in CVS module apache-site.
One nice thing about the current arrangement is that the HTML files
at the above location are *very* easy to maintain - they're just
checked out from a CVS library. Any replacement system can only be
more complicated, but it *must* allow easy regeneration of the site
documents in HTML.
Also, I'm already working on the FAQ and making it
news.answers-ready, so that's another data-point. However,
conversion to that format, if not automatic, should be a simple
matter of Perl. I'd appreciate it if anyone wanting to do a
wholesale reorg of the FAQ would coordinate with me first. (I'm
including you, Ralf! ;-)
#ken :-)}