Folks,
This is my first post here, so Hello All!
The documentation seems to be in early stage of development.
AFAIS, the idea is to have it developed and hosted as GitHub Wiki pages.
Is that so?
Is the Wiki for documentation really a good idea?
I think there could be a better approach and results
2011/12/16 Garrett Serack :
> Well, since I'm going to spend the next week or so writing docs, I'll start
> by chiming in.
>
> The wiki's not a bad place to start (GitHub's wiki is Markdown, so that's a
> good thing).
GitHub Wiki is great.
My concern is about using Wiki in general as a first-con
2011/12/16 Adam Baxter :
> So into the wiki idea, add approved revisions - that way you get the
> benefits of wikis with some versioning and publishing.
I think it's a good idea.
Simply, if there is:
a) well-defined workflow of documenting CoApp
b) stable frame for documentation structure set
then
Hi,
I frequently need to make a GitHub mirror of a project with source
code hosted in SVN,
for example on SF.net. This also applies to many projects I want to
package with CoApp.
I have been testing various workflows and none has proved to be simple and
robust until I found git-svn-mirror tool wr
2011/12/19 Garrett Serack :
> I'll be pushing out the new website today (with a lot of pages to be filled
> in over the next couple weeks)
Looking forward to trying it out!
> It creates pages out of github-flavored-markdown--including the
> triple-backtick (```) syntax-highlighed
> source code
On 19 December 2011 21:12, Garrett Serack wrote:
> I've pushed up the new CoApp.org website.
Congrats!
> I'm aiming for a little simpler layout for content, and a trivial path to
> promote docs from the wiki to the website.
It looks great, clear, slick!
> The previous incarnation was running o
2011/12/20 Andrew Fenn :
> Could you explain in more detail why you need subversion in this workflow?
I am not entirely sure I understand the question.
Is it why I need Subversion tool (which I actually do not need)
or why I need to deal with repositories hosted in Subversion at all?
p.s. I have
2011/12/20 Vincent Povirk :
> I think we should make it a policy to never convert other projects'
> revision control to git, if they're not already git, because the extra
> software it requires packagers to learn, install, and use does not
> convey any extra benefits.
This point is either clear to
2011/12/20 Andrew Fenn :
> Sorry, when I first responded to your email it was on my phone and I
> misinterpreted what you wrote to mean that you wished to turn git repos into
> subversion ones.
>
> Please ignore the question.
No problem. Thanks for explanation.
Cheers,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://
2011/12/20 Vincent Povirk :
>> How do I do it?
>
> I've explained this in my previous post, and you appear to have
> understood. If there's something still unclear, please let me know.
I was typing my reply while reading, so later on I got it clarified indeed.
>> Indeed. That's why we need to hos
On 21 December 2011 01:46, Garrett Serack wrote:
> I've been feverishly trying to write documentation this week ... and at the
> same time enhancing the DocPad-powered cms engine that's powering the
> CoApp.org website.
Garrett,
The new coapp.org looks great!
AFAIU, the "Version:1.0" means versi
2011/12/21 Vincent Povirk :
>> Simply put, I think we need to achieve something like this:
>>
>> http://happygiraffe.net/blog/files/wordpress_vendor_branch.png
>
> Brilliant. That picture sums up what I mean exactly.
Vincent,
Fantastico. We are clear then.
Garrett,
What is your opinion about al
2011/12/21 Garrett Serack :
> So the consensus is to take snapshots, not import history.
> I'm really good with that.
Yes. Just maintain snapshots of packaged project + history of
CoApp-specific changes.
> (since it really means that anything
> we're dealing with is 1 fork = (1 snapshot of a fore
2011/12/23 Garrett Serack :
> The "version" refers to the article version--when the document changes enough,
I see. I thought it is version of a tool/toolkit.
> and you want to dump the comment thread on that article,
> you can update the version in the header, and disqus thinks its a whole new
On 21 December 2011 01:46, Garrett Serack wrote:
> As you can see, I've started to make some 'standards' around what the
> content looks like, hopefully this will help people start to get a grip on
> the work that we've been doing.
>
> I'd love your feedback, and even more, I'd love any help you c
Hi Garrett,
I'm traveling in Germany without my laptop now. I'm back home on 31st and
then I'll continue working with CoApp
Mateusz Loskot
(Sent from my mobile, so apology for top-posting or no quoting)
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-deve
I'm traveling in Germany, laptop-less and mostly offline,
until Sunday, so can't make it this time.
Mateusz Loskot
(Sent from my mobile, so apology for top-posting or no quoting)
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
Post to : coa
Hi Garrett,
So, I'm back home and I have just tried to build the CoApp.
And...
2011/12/29 Garrett Serack :
> You should be able to do a clean checkout:
>
> git clone --recursive g...@github.com:coapp/coapp.git
works nicely and well.
> And then build from a SDK command prompt (Actually, you *sho
2012/1/1 Mateusz Łoskot :
> 2011/12/29 Garrett Serack :
>> And then build from a SDK command prompt (Actually, you *should* be able to
>> build from *any* command prompt)
>>
>> cd coapp
>>
>> tools\ext\ptk build release
>>
>> (or)
>>
>
2012/1/1 Garrett Serack :
> Riiight. Send me a pull request with just that fix in it. (I think it was
> mixed in with other stuff before)
I believe it has been completed already.
For archive completeness, here is reference:
https://github.com/coapp/coapp.org/commit/2b4460637afe005675f8dd4b4e4697
2012/1/2 Garrett Serack :
> I meant the afxres.h fix.
Gotcha. Here it comes:
https://github.com/coapp/coapp/pull/10
Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
Post to : coa
21 matches
Mail list logo
