Hello,
many thanks to Edson for scripts and Henning for help and testing, the first phase of migrating the sgml to xml is done. You can now add changes to any module documentation you wish.
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) - 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)
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.
Cheers, Daniel
On Monday 10 March 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
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
Hi, Guys...
Just to put another point of view... removing the template is fine to those that will write a new module documentation, since, as Henning said, they usually use another one already wirted as starting point.
But... where to put the documentation templates? The documentation definitions? The structure definitions... I would say that the template files (as examples on how to write) can be easily removed, not the directory... it (for me, sure) seems the right place to put the structure definitions files...
At last, I would say that SNV revision or date, both have there advantage an disadvantage... Than, why not keeping both? Something like: "Revision X, valid on <compilation date> at <compilation time>"?
Edson
-----Original Message----- From: openser-docs-bounces@lists.openser.org [mailto:openser-docs- bounces@lists.openser.org] On Behalf Of Henning Westerholt Sent: segunda-feira, 10 de março de 2008 15:10 To: openser-docs@lists.openser.org; miconda@gmail.com Subject: Re: [OpenSER-Docs] module documentation sgml to xml migration
On Monday 10 March 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
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
Openser-docs mailing list Openser-docs@lists.openser.org http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openser-docs
Hello,
On 03/10/08 20:52, Edson wrote:
Hi, Guys...
Just to put another point of view... removing the template is fine to those that will write a new module documentation, since, as Henning said, they usually use another one already wirted as starting point.
But... where to put the documentation templates? The documentation definitions? The structure definitions... I would say that the template files (as examples on how to write) can be easily removed, not the directory... it (for me, sure) seems the right place to put the structure definitions files...
I think we should remove all things that are not actually in use. The templates were not updated since long time, that's a clear sign of useless.
We will add new files as we get them, from the ones mentioned by you.
At last, I would say that SNV revision or date, both have there advantage an disadvantage... Than, why not keeping both? Something like: "Revision X, valid on <compilation date> at <compilation time>"?
As expressed in my previous email, I think we should use the global svn revision at generation time (for readme, html) -- this way one can control better validity of the document for a certain feature and content. The documents are generated from many files (admin, devel, etc), having several revision numbers in same document is confusing.
Cheers, Daniel
Edson
-----Original Message----- From: openser-docs-bounces@lists.openser.org [mailto:openser-docs- bounces@lists.openser.org] On Behalf Of Henning Westerholt Sent: segunda-feira, 10 de março de 2008 15:10 To: openser-docs@lists.openser.org; miconda@gmail.com Subject: Re: [OpenSER-Docs] module documentation sgml to xml migration
On Monday 10 March 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
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
Openser-docs mailing list Openser-docs@lists.openser.org http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openser-docs
Hi...
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:miconda@gmail.com] Sent: segunda-feira, 10 de março de 2008 20:45 To: Edson Cc: 'Henning Westerholt'; openser-docs@lists.openser.org Subject: Re: [OpenSER-Docs] module documentation sgml to xml migration
Hello,
On 03/10/08 20:52, Edson wrote:
Hi, Guys...
Just to put another point of view... removing the template is fine to
those
that will write a new module documentation, since, as Henning said, they usually use another one already wirted as starting point.
But... where to put the documentation templates? The documentation definitions? The structure definitions... I would say that the template files (as examples on how to write) can be easily removed, not the directory... it (for me, sure) seems the right place to put the structure definitions files...
I think we should remove all things that are not actually in use. The templates were not updated since long time, that's a clear sign of useless.
That's Ok for me.
We will add new files as we get them, from the ones mentioned by you.
At last, I would say that SNV revision or date, both have there advantage
an
disadvantage... Than, why not keeping both? Something like: "Revision X, valid on <compilation date> at <compilation time>"?
As expressed in my previous email, I think we should use the global svn revision at generation time (for readme, html) -- this way one can control better validity of the document for a certain feature and content. The documents are generated from many files (admin, devel, etc), having several revision numbers in same document is confusing.
Yep... my fault... I wasn't clear enough... I also agrre with You about use the global revision number, but what do You think about include the generation time _inside_ the generated files?
Cheers, Edson
Cheers, Daniel
Edson
-----Original Message----- From: openser-docs-bounces@lists.openser.org [mailto:openser-docs- bounces@lists.openser.org] On Behalf Of Henning Westerholt Sent: segunda-feira, 10 de março de 2008 15:10 To: openser-docs@lists.openser.org; miconda@gmail.com Subject: Re: [OpenSER-Docs] module documentation sgml to xml migration
On Monday 10 March 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
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
Openser-docs mailing list Openser-docs@lists.openser.org http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openser-docs
Hello Henning,
On 03/10/08 20:09, Henning Westerholt wrote:
On Monday 10 March 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
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.
ok.
- 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.
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).
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.
It is what I think as well.
Cheers, Daniel
Cheers,
Henning
On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
[..] 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.
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).
Hi Daniel,
there is only one revision per module documentation, this was removed during the cleanups that Edson did. But to keep this in the master document is only not that useful, you're right. I think that your suggestion to use the same revision like in the 'openser -V' output is reasonable. This way its easily checkable that the documentation matches installed binaries.
Cheers,
Henning
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Edson -
Henning Westerholt