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

Re: CVS problem

On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 13:56 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 12:03 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
> >    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.
> Ah, I see.
> Having docs-common as a peer directory seems to be the least
> mainentance, hassle, and chance of breaking in a bad way.
> We can easily have a list of common errors in the Documentation Guide
> that mean you need to look for an update to docs-common.
> Options A, B, and C require too much for the value they bring.
> Option D only risks minor problems for the user that teaches them better
> how to fish when it happens.

I don't think B sounds too hard either.  And it goes hand-in-hand with
the Documentation Guide's "LearnAsYouGo" slant.  I'll make this part of
the considerations for the hands-on portion, with the idea that it will
be equally helpful to participants who don't need as much hand-holding.

> > 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.
> I agree with this except that the current setup does need a tweak, which
> is why we have this thread.  Elliott pointed out the messiness of all
> the little directories that docs-setup brings down, and he was echoing
> something that I thought.  Already we have four directories that need to
> be brought down to peer level and updated separately.
> Reading between the lines in your post, I *think* you agree with this
> reason for moving everything into a single module, docs-common.

Makes sense to me too.

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

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