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

Re: [atomic-devel] Doc format?



[Pulling in an off-list discusion]

Pete,

Some things I'd envision from an upstream/Fedora/downstream writing
collaboration around atomic include:
- Publicly developed code and supporting documentation, with clear contribution
  guidelines.
- A pool of upstream SMEs available for technical conversations with community
  writers.
- A maintained feature roadmap from upstream
- SME guidance from upstream on the Fedora Release Notes, so newly landed
  features are documented as they are shipped.

I think this sounds like a great idea to get official documentation collaboration moving again.

Joe,

Since it stalled, is there any chance we can move it towards either
ASCIIdoc or Markdown and not have a third format in contention?

It sounds like we can if only because there's tooling issues with all of the various markups.  What's the least amount of friction to getting new docs written?  AsciiDoc?

- Matt M


On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb redhat com> wrote:
On 03/08/2016 10:14 AM, Matt Micene wrote:
>
> That's exactly where we landed.  Bex emailed me off list with what,
> hopefully, is a good jumpstart for getting docs moving again.  I'm going
> to bring the discussion over to the atomic-devel list.

Since it stalled, is there any chance we can move it towards either
ASCIIdoc or Markdown and not have a third format in contention?

Glad to move away from SGML/XML/Docbook, but would rather not have to
maintain brain space for **four** concurrent similar but different
markup formats (MediaWiki, Markdown, ASCIIDoc, and RST).

Best,

jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
jzb redhat com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/



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