On 12/27/05, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Err, I would suggest you please go and read the [EMAIL PROTECTED] archives. > That's basically a "FAQ" at this point. You may also wish to go and look for > some posts by me over the last few years to the forrest mailing lists, or > to the avalon mailing lists with the added keyword of "forrest".
Thanks! Since I'm trying to get more into the "Apache" ways, I think I'll do that (though I think there is a bit more there than just a "FAQ" given that there are probably several thousand mails in the archives, and site-dev should be similar though I havn't found its archive yet). > I will assert OpenOffice is big and bloated and overkill too and not > simple at all. I like vi and subethaedit. And HTML. Well, I was under the (wrong) assumption that you were talking about the docs of the incubated projects. And for them, OpenOffice might be a good idea. For a lot of people, everything close to Word is a good thing, for that matter. But since your problem is about the Incubator docs itself, OpenOffice is irrelevant anyways. > > Anyway, I hope you don't mind me making a case for using this as an > > opportunity to make Forrest better instead of abandoning it. > > Well, basically I do. I've spent several years (ever since Avalon became > the first forrest user outside the xml.a.o group) working with forrest, > helping it to improve and try and help to turn it into something that > satisfies our simple use case, but its just not a good idea to keep going > down that path. I've read through about 9 months of discussion on the > site-dev list where basically the same discussion took place over and over > again which was very frustrating (or so it seems) for all the participants. > Nothing is ever going to get done if we keep having the same discussion > over and over again. > > There is such a thing as "trying too hard" to get "full consensus" on a > topic that is "too vague". DavidC's site management proposal from so long ago > and each and every proposal after that has something along the line of > "Projects can use various documentation tools: Anakia, Forrest, Maven, raw > html, etc. Each system would have its own ways to report build problems to the > committer (e.g. xml validation, broken links, content and spelling errors, > configuration errors)." for a good reason. "There is more than one way to > do it" and this is going to be Yet Another Way. > > I don't want to spend more time helping to improve Forrest or discussing the > relative merits of a variety of solutions. I have an itch to scratch and I > want to build a little piece of software to scratch it, in a way that is > compatible with all the goals and needs of the ASF, the Infrastructure Team, > the Incubator, the Gump project, and hopefully a few other projects. But I > don't want to concern myself with the needs of the Forrest community right > now as part of this effort, that's making it too hard to get anything done. Thanks, I understand your itch now :-) Though I'm not quite sure yet what the implications are. regards, Tom --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
