Quantcast

kb -> c.developermanual

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Dylan Jay-4 Dylan Jay-4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

kb -> c.developermanual

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
Plone-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
aclark aclark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

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* Out of date c-docs on plone.org/documentation (because no one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* Out of date c-docs on collective-docs.plone.org because your recent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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
Dylan Jay-4 Dylan Jay-4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual


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
> [hidden email]
> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
JonStahl JonStahl
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Dylan Jay <[hidden email]> 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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
Dylan Jay-4 Dylan Jay-4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

On 08/07/2011, at 12:19 PM, Jon Stahl wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Dylan Jay <[hidden email]> 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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
aclark aclark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

In reply to this post by JonStahl
Hi Jon,

On 7/7/11 10:19 PM, Jon Stahl wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Dylan Jay<[hidden email]>  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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
aclark aclark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

In reply to this post by Dylan Jay-4
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<[hidden email]>  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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
aclark aclark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

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<[hidden email]>   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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
Dylan Jay-4 Dylan Jay-4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

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<[hidden email]>    
>>>> 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?




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
Dylan Jay-4 Dylan Jay-4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

In reply to this post by aclark

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<[hidden email]>    
>>>> 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.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
aclark aclark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

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<[hidden email]>
>>>>> 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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
Martin Aspeli-3 Martin Aspeli-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

In reply to this post by aclark


On 8 Jul 2011, at 04:01, Alex Clark <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Jon,
>
> On 7/7/11 10:19 PM, Jon Stahl wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Dylan Jay<[hidden email]>  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
> [hidden email]
> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
Martin Aspeli-3 Martin Aspeli-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

In reply to this post by Dylan Jay-4


On 8 Jul 2011, at 02:02, Dylan Jay <[hidden email]> 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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
Dylan Jay-4 Dylan Jay-4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

On 08/07/2011, at 5:15 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:

>
>
> On 8 Jul 2011, at 02:02, Dylan Jay <[hidden email]> 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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
Martin Aspeli-3 Martin Aspeli-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual



On 8 Jul 2011, at 08:24, Dylan Jay <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 08/07/2011, at 5:15 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 02:02, Dylan Jay <[hidden email]> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
aclark aclark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

In reply to this post by Martin Aspeli-3
On 7/8/11 3:12 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:

>
>
> On 8 Jul 2011, at 04:01, Alex Clark<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>> On 7/7/11 10:19 PM, Jon Stahl wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Dylan Jay<[hidden email]>   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
>> [hidden email]
>> 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
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs


--
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
aclark aclark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

In reply to this post by Martin Aspeli-3
On 7/8/11 4:21 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:

>
>
> On 8 Jul 2011, at 08:24, Dylan Jay<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> On 08/07/2011, at 5:15 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 02:02, Dylan Jay<[hidden email]>  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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
Dylan Jay-4 Dylan Jay-4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

On 09/07/2011, at 12:25 AM, Alex Clark <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7/8/11 4:21 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 08:24, Dylan Jay<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/07/2011, at 5:15 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 02:02, Dylan Jay<[hidden email]>  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
> [hidden email]
> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
aclark aclark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual

On 7/8/11 6:50 PM, Dylan Jay wrote:

> On 09/07/2011, at 12:25 AM, Alex Clark<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> On 7/8/11 4:21 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 08:24, Dylan Jay<[hidden email]>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/07/2011, at 5:15 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 02:02, Dylan Jay<[hidden email]>   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
>> [hidden email]
>> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
Martin Aspeli-3 Martin Aspeli-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: kb -> c.developermanual



On 9 Jul 2011, at 02:14, Alex Clark <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7/8/11 6:50 PM, Dylan Jay wrote:
>> On 09/07/2011, at 12:25 AM, Alex Clark<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/8/11 4:21 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 08:24, Dylan Jay<[hidden email]>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/07/2011, at 5:15 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8 Jul 2011, at 02:02, Dylan Jay<[hidden email]>   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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-docs
12
Loading...