Axel Hecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... >Brian Heinrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 06 Jul 2002, it is alleged that Alexander J. Vincent sauntered in to > > netscape.public.mozilla.documentation and loudly proclaimed: > > > I think it's high time we figured out what we want to use ZOPE for. > > > I've seen four opinions on the issue so far: > > > (1) Forget ZOPE and stick with CVS. > > Don't much like this idea, I'm afraid. Zope has already set sail ... CVS is still there.
> > > (2) Use ZOPE for a catalog, linking to documentation. > > Well, this is a mite bit better than (1) Have Zope host a catalog that links to docs on moz.org? > > > (3) Use ZOPE as both a catalog and a base for hosting future > > > documentation. > > This is much closer to what we should be looking at. And not have docs on m.o? > > > (4) Port most of the current documentation on mozilla.org to ZOPE. > > This might be going a bit far. _Porting documents_?!! eeeeeeeeuuuuukkk!! > > > My personal preference is for (2) or (3). There is serious opposition > > > from significant people in mozilla.org (particularly Dawn Endico) to > > > (4), and from a logistical point of view it looks very time-consuming. The costs to (4) are strikingly obvious (some, at least), but I cannot see the advantage. > > > (1) is in my opinion viable only if we can make the catalog we have more > > > useful and more dynamic (which is what I originally filed bug 151961 > > > for), especially including a search feature. I can imagine that moz.org would benefit by increased functionality. > > > If we aren't able to get CVS and ZOPE to do a mind-meld, I'd say go with > > > (2). If we are able to get that mind-meld, I'd say go with (3). I'm astonished that the idea of having moz docs hosted on zope is being seriously considered ... flabbergasted, actually. > > > However, I am *not* the final say on this, and I'd like to know what you > > > ladies and gentlemen think. Especially if you have a (5), a (6), a (7)... > > (5) Use ZOPE as a catalogue and as a means of *developing* the necessary > > documentation. !Bingo! > > Port the existing documentation to ZOPE for development > > purpose. I can't imagine why else to go through ZOPE implementation. > > Port presentable documentation back to CVS for purposes of CVS > > blame unless it is possible to get that kind of revision history data w/i > > ZOPE w/o too much trouble. Why not use CVS where it's best? > > Try to ensure that the catalogue and documentation is portable. Deff ... absolutely ... amazed it needs discussion. > > This is rather a hodge-podge, I know, but it would allow us to use ZOPE's > > strengths w/o necessarily locking us in to anything. I can imagine a fishbowl / dogbowl scenario that puts ZOPE's strengths to good use, lets CVS operate appropriately, and doesn't end up with a set of customized documents hosted off moz.org (see below) > > Just some thoughts; anyone care to take them up? > Hrm. "Developing" documentation? That ain't workin. See all those > "developing" string docs we had. Imagine this: 1) some typically eccentric and individual development cycle produces a slab of text (i.e. some portion of a new doc, or a correct update of an existing doc) 2) that slab of text gets posted for annotation / review 3) the slab is added to, corrected, adjusted, improved, or whatever 4) the slab is either a) left on the dev box, inspiring others to like efforts, or b) incorporated into an existing document by a reviewer, using CVS My point is that there can be all sorts of interim stages, which are accessible for annotation (ZOPE's WebDAV?), but that the best version is always available through the public site (moz.org) > One has to go for it, document it to a stage where you can publicize > it, and then you track errors and/or features of that page in bugzilla. > AFAICT that works great for the DOM reference, and it uses the > tools the mozilla coders are familiar with. Plus their means of > communication. We have a problem with maintaining a single copy of > our docs, I tend to think it will get worse if people should maintain > two different sites. I've always had trouble with folks thinking of docs as though it's source ... it isn't. I can change a lot of things in a doc and it won't break. A document can be correct and complete and still unusable. Half-decent first cut documents can be full of typos and grammatical glitches and still very helpful. There are similarities, but IMHO those hide some deep differences. A beautifully crafted searchable doc sux if it's wrong; a plain vanilla text file with nothing but a list of instructions can be a lot better than nothing. Perhaps it would have been better for me to admit off the top that I haven't sucked back all the messages on this list, nor all of the re-org list. But it occurs to me that having a clearly listed document set, and a clearly listed set of users, there can be a flow established that is only bureaucratic (and perhaps only slightly bureaucratic) at the step of committing changes to documents that are being presented as authoritative, i.e. CVS controlled docs on moz.org ... ZOPE can host the fishbowl. > > > Alex > > /b. > Axel hfx_ben
