[Bug 427481] Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481





------- Additional Comments From jwulf at redhat.com  2008-01-10 10:19 EST -------
Hey guys, I've been following the conversation on this package. I've been using
it on Fedora for the past year and a half.

A couple of things:

1) Open sourcing this package and contributing it to Fedora will be of great
benefit for the state of Fedora documentation. Basically this is the toolchain
that is used to produce RHEL and JBoss documentation. 

It is a mature project with a significant existing community of users, who have
it embedded in their enterprise infrastructure. 

Changing the name is not a trivial exercise - the impact is quite high, and open
source projects, even commercial ones, are not known for having resources to spare.

This isn't in itself a reason to retain the name in Fedora, but it gives some
context to jfearn's concern. 

2) In terms of the suitability of the name for the package - I agree that what
we're looking at here is a canonical name - like "kernel" or "NetworkManager".

I think that we can make a case for this package to have the canonical name. 

There is a missing infrastructure piece for development of documentation for
open source software. The fact that this name space is vacant apart from this
package indicates the necessity of such a piece. It also indicates that this
package speaks strongly to this need, perhaps sufficiently now to answer it,
perhaps with some further work. At the very least it is a significant starting
point.

The package brings together an end-to-end opensource toolchain that allows open
source projects to produce professional documentation, taking several forms of
input and outputting html, pdf, manpages, xml, and several other formats. 

It produces branded documentation using templates.

It handles multiple language translations.

It's been developed over a number of years and is used in an enterprise setting.

Basically it provides the whole kit and caboodle for professional open source
documentation production from source. In terms of Fedora it provides a missing
infrastructure piece for documentation production and translations.

In terms of the wider scene it provides a missing infrastructure piece, and so I
think that a canonical name is not out of place. Red Hat / Fedora have a history
of providing significant plumbing pieces to the community (like NetworkManager).

I think we have a good case for retaining the canonical name, because with this
package we have a good, clear shot at the title.

Take a look at what it can do, how extensible it is, and where it fits into an
existing gap in the infrastructure scene, and see what you think.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.