On 25 Jul 2012, at 07:17, Mark Struberg wrote: > David, the CMS is already set up and running (in SVN [1]). We just need a bit > more stylish css. > > And you can perfectly create pdf docs out of markdown. > > Of course we can also use alternative formats. But to me this is like a > colour preference - markdown is supported out of the box and provides all > needed options.
My only concern here is that Markdown doesn't support a few useful things for full on docs (vs readmes and snippets of text): * admonitions * callouts on code * a standard way of indicating what the source language of a code block is * definition lists * tables (though there are extensions to Markdown that support this, idk if Apache CMS' implementation of Markdown does?) I find all of these things useful when writing docs. It was for these reasons that we decided at JBoss we needed more than MarkDown for docs. We choose AsciiDoc as our extended format for docs: * It can process 95% of markdown's syntax * It supports all of the above deficiencies in markdown * It has a good toolchain built in, that spits out pdf and epub * It can convert to docbook * It has good docs I'm not suggesting that DeltaSpike should do the same, just contributing our findings :-) > > Shane, I don't think I bypassed anyone. We discussed this since 6 months and > noone started working on it. Thus I finally dropped a mail and then > implemented it. I also got no stop mail back then. > Honestly I really don't care which format we use, IF someone else is doing > the work and others can easily add documentation. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/deltaspike/site/trunk/ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: David Blevins <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:37 AM >> Subject: Re: [suggestion] - Documentation >> >> T he answer to both these questions really that the CMS creates >> "websites", some details on that below >> >> I'll note that the CMS is svn based -- maybe undesirable given the use of >> git. >> >> On Jul 24, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Shane Bryzak wrote: >> >>> Does the choice of Apache CMS for hosting documentation meet the following >> requirements? >>> >>> 1) Making available the documentation for previously released versions of >> DeltaSpike. >> >> If by "make available" the intention is browsable on the website, then >> sure there are ways to handle that. >> >>> 2) Making available the documentation in offline formats, such as HTML or >> PDF available for download. >> >> Certainly you can use the same source to generate non-website looking HTML. >> Same goes for PDF. >> >> You wouldn't be using the CMS to do this, but the CMS doesn't prevent >> it. It'd be something we setup ourselves and could be done via a CI server >> or something done at release time. >> >> Basically the CMS is a system that is for generate website html using the >> following layout: >> >> - content/<source-files-and-directories> >> - lib/<site-generating-perl-functions> >> - templates/<whatever-you-need-for-templates> >> >> When something in 'content/' is updated, it will run it through lib/ >> (which leverages templates/) and save the resulting html to disk and take >> care >> of synching that html file from staging to production. >> >> When something in 'lib/' or 'templates/' is updated, it pretends >> as if everything in 'content/' has changed and performs the above step >> on every source file. >> >> You can organize the 'content/' dir however you want. That could mean: >> >> - content/v0.1/ >> - content/v0.2/ >> - content/current/ >> >> Where 'current' gets versioned on release. Or anything at all. Maybe >> just: >> >> - content/<wild-wild-west> >> >> >> So the short answer is there isn't anything there to prevent or help the two >> points. >> >> In terms of generating outside the CMS which is what would be needed for >> say, >> turning many files into one file such as a zip of html or a PDF, it's up to >> us. There are projects that do it via buildbot. Buildbot is not so much a >> CI >> tool as it is "cron with a webUI" and also happens to have the ability >> to be trigger by commits. >> >> Really, you can get anything done with buildbot without much in the way of >> restrictions. It's a mediocre CI system and an amazing cron replacement. >> >> >> -David >>
