[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora Documentation Platform



On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 01:20 +0000, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 12:20 -0600, Jonathan Steffan wrote:

> > * Replace Makefiles with config files and then use the FDP to do all
> > building, allowing a user to specify they want to use the local cpu to
> > do the building, or if they want to use the buildd.
> > 
> > 	+ We get to use python :-D
> > 	+ IMHO we would get much more flexibility and a tighter integration
> > with our translators and translation systems (read: translators would be
> > able to easily render for their language to check their results before
> > pushing the build to zope
> > 	+ AFAIK, we have more combined skills with python, over Makefiles
> 
> I afraid of being a naysayer, but this sounds a bit like the cart
> driving the horse.

This is the essence of my concern, that tools needs are driving the
situation.  DocBook XML in an SCM is a well known, stable way to write
content.

> Does this mean that two people can't work on a guide at the same time,
> or only that two people can't publish the same guide at the same time?
> Because currently, Karsten and I can do something like hit the Release
> Notes "beats" in tandem to get the content put together faster.  Can you
> explain this in a way that shows me how we gain by using this kind of
> scheme?

In fact, that is an essence of source control.  You can work on the same
file at the same time.

> I think I may be able to hazily glimpse a little of why these config
> files are important, but it's still eluding me.  Could these config
> files, then, be generated from Makefile rules and a bit of other content
> unseen by mortals?  That would retain some sort of compatibility for
> people who just want to do work via the $SCM command line.  

+1

If we have to have a parallel system, it would help to have them tie
together via Makefiles somehow.  Plone administration could be a
separate function from CVS/Makefile admin.

Basically, we're already stretched thin on resources to handle a
relatively simple Makefile system.   Building a more complex beast to
replace it is a bit scary.  Perhaps if we got Fedora Infrastructure
involved?  But really, it's not their job to maintain sub-project
toolchains.  I'm nervous about creating a need for a *more* experienced
resource to replace what we have now.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]