Hi all,
In today's IRC meeting we discussed how to move forward with regard to documentation. At this point I think most people have agreed that sphinx looks like the way to to go. So we focused more on logistics in the meeting, in particular how to store docs in svn.
What we came up with as a compromise was to store them parallel to the source and configuration trees. So it would look like this:
geoserver/
configuration/
...
geoserver/
...
documentation/
user/
developer/
Any objections to this structure?
David also brought up the good point that having the source tree called "geoserver" is sort of misleading. So we brought up the possibility of renaming it to "source". So the result would be:
geoserver/
configuartion/
documentation/
source/
Thoughts/comments/complaints?
-Justin
--
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
<snip>
David also brought up the good point that having the source tree called "geoserver" is sort of misleading. So we brought up the possibility of renaming it to "source". So the result would be:
geoserver/
configuartion/
documentation/
source/
If we go down this road, I'd say let's get the most out of it and
raname "configuration" into "data", "sample-data", "data-dirs".
I guess seeing "data" into the name reminds people about the eventual
big amount of stuff they will be checking out there.
I don't know about you, but configuration just makes me think of
xml and property files, i.e., nothing big.
Cheers
Andrea
--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
If we go down this road, I'd say let's get the most out of it and
raname "configuration" into "data", "sample-data", "data-dirs".
I guess seeing "data" into the name reminds people about the eventual
big amount of stuff they will be checking out there.
I don't know about you, but configuration just makes me think of
xml and property files, i.e., nothing big.
Yeah... but not sure how to get around this... our notion of a "data directory" tightly couples the two. I do think the name configuration does make more sense... since each directory does correspond to a "runnable configuration".
But in the spirit of compromise what about "data-configuration" ? 
Cheers
Andrea
--
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.