Speaking with Daniel on IRC this morning convinced me that pushing for docs CMS adoption at this point remains a hard sell. We both agreed that migrating the main site first to the CMS would be better for all concerned, so let's go that route for now and come back to docs once everyone has had a chance to play with the CMS on a production site that they actually care about.
Since the site is a standard Anakia thingy, we have migration tools that will convert the xml to markdown, and I talked Daniel into coming up with a simple django template for the site. That means we can use the CMS's standard perl build stuff instead of the largeish collection of java utils that generate the html- its a whole lot simpler and faster in practice once the docs have been migrated. We can leave any .html and .txt documents as-is, they won't be changed by the build. Another thing I'd like to see us do is move the download.cgi script out of the doctree and into a separate cgi-bin/ dir, just so we can actually practice what we preach ;-). The CMS fully supports that. Anyhow if we can find consensus on this plan we can take this back to dev@ and look for general approval. Thoughts? >________________________________ > From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> >To: "docs@httpd.apache.org" <docs@httpd.apache.org> >Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 3:22 PM >Subject: Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS > > >IME it's a bit of a challenge to get CMS users >to pay attention to the build output, even tho >we provide links to the build in question, so >if we can validate on form submission it will >work out a bit better. > > > > > >>________________________________ >> From: Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> >>To: docs@httpd.apache.org; Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> >>Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 3:19 PM >>Subject: Re: Proposal to move docs to Apache CMS >> >> >> >> >>On May 4, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> >>It'll be interesting to see how codemirror2 handles >>>the custom character entities in the httpd docs, but assuming >>>it doesn't choke there's probably an option to validate >>>the XML before allowing it to be submitted to the server. >>> >>>I doubt that's currently turned on, but if the code >>>does the right thing I might be convinced to enable it. >> >> >>Our build script does validation as part of the build process, too. >> >>-- >>Rich Bowen >>rbo...@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen >>rbo...@apache.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
