11 Mar
2008
11 Mar
'08
10:32 a.m.
Hello Henning,
On 03/10/08 20:09, Henning Westerholt wrote:
At this time, there are revision numbers for each chapter (admin, devel,
faq, ...) and they reflect svn commit revision for that specif file.
Having up to 3 or 4 such numbers in same readme might be confusing.
keeping one in the master, will not reflect changes, as module.xml is
the less updated. Good alternative will be to find a way to add the svn
revision at generation time (as we get it now with compilation of
openser and it is reflected in openser -v). I think it is possible with
xml, to give a parameter value in the command line (needs investigation).
It is what I think as well.
Cheers,
Daniel
On Monday 10 March 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
ok.
Remaining steps, that should not affect the
content:
- migration from entities to xinclude (Henning perhaps we can talk a bit
on IRC as I get some strange errors, if you have a bit of time)
Hello Daniel,
thank you for the migration. Sure, we can talk tomorow about this.
- decide about some parts of the documentation if
we keep it or not.
docbook xml tools are more advanced than sgml ones, more information is
displayed now: e.g., svn revision info appears in each document now,
should we keep it? It is not really what one will expect from revision
part of a document (should show changes done in the document)
This big revision string is probably a little bit overkill. Perhaps we can use
either: only the svn revision, or the date of the last change? The former has
more advantages for the developer/ writer, the last one is probably better
understandable for the reader.
As now, there are few other sgml documents. The
templates for module
documentation. Should we keep them (doc/templates/module)? I think they
were not in use for quite some time, nor updated. The tls doc will be
migrated xml (tls/doc). The rest should be now all over xml.
Perhaps we can remove the template, i think most people uses a small module as
their starting point now.
Cheers,
Henning