On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 12:03 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote: > Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx>, spake thus: > > As FDP's CVS admin, let me get the ball rolling: > > > Elliot suggested simply subordinating these to a separate folder, which > > we could name appropriately. Some suggestions included docs-setup/ and > > docs-common/. This would mean there would now be docs-setup/xsl/, and > > so forth. The Makefile we use would have to be patched appropriately, > > of course. > > I think this is a shrug to most folks, but I'm in favor of it. > > > In light of the pace of these changes, and the fact that there are more > > on the horizon, I think we should re-examine requiring people do > > separate checkouts of a docs-setup module. > > I raise objection to this on two points: > > 1) Duplicate copies if folk check out multiple documents; this is > really a minor nit. Not that minor, wrt Karsten's previous post... could cause problems down the line. > 2) My real objection was the complication of importing a new document > into CVS. > > Consider: to start a new document, perhaps the easiest way is to > check out the "example-tutorial" document, recursively delete all > the CVS directories and then import it back as the new document. > There are other ways of creating the initial directory tree, so > don't get hung up on this point. The key idea is that a new > contributor will start with a virgin doc tree that has the > "docs-common" stuff as a subdirectory. > > Now, the author is ready to import the document for the first > time. Any existing CVS directories must be deleted as well as the > "docs-common" tree before the import is done. > > I think asking a newbie to be sure to do _any_ preparatory surgery > before an import is asking for trouble. It *is* possible to > import a "CVS/" directory although CVS is supposed to create that > necessary structure and now you've got trouble in River City. You're on track here. Ease of use is Goal #1 AFAIC. > Possible solutions are: > > A) Document, document, document the proper (nonstandard) > procedure for importing a document and ask newbies to follow > it unerringly; or > > B) Provide a shell script that will do the cleanup and importing > for them and ask that they use the script instead of doing the > CVS import themselves. We'll still have to clean up the > mess when they ignore the script and try to learn about CVS > by doing the import manually; or > > C) Write a PGP(?) / Wiki(?) / HTML(?) / Java(?) page that will do > the selective importing if the newbie just identifies the > top-level directory in a form. Very similar to attaching a > file to a Yahoo mail message. or > > D) Keep the "docs-common" as a peer directory that needs be > updated only when the CVS structure changes or when a document > fails to build because of a missing entity. I like B because it's magically delicious. No, really, it would be a cool and helpful thing; saves a bunch of steps for everyone, new or not. Not subject to Internet connectivity (very minor nit), plus less work to get it up and running (less minor) :-). > My point is the current setup has a painless, no-error-possible > document import. I don't really care if a stylesheet changes an > indent from 0.5in to 0.56in because the document rendering on the > local system isn't critical. Anyone wanting "proper" documents can > just update the "docs-common" before sending the PDF to the printers. > > CVS can handle either model, so there is no technological reason to > prefer one method over the other. Let the list decide, but let the > list make an informed decision; either way works for me. > > Hope this clarifies the problem for ya'll Excellent, thanks. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
