Nut upsdev - Jul 2009 - [nut-commits] svn commit r1875 - in branches/AsciiDoc: . docs docs/icons

On Jul 28, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Arnaud Quette wrote:
> some testing around the NUT Packager Guide to validate the general  
> approach of the new documentation.
> The shell script is there to track the command line used to generate  
> the HTML output, and the generated HTML file to show the result.
Hi Arnaud,

would it be OK for me to merge the contents of the shell script into  
docs/Makefile.am?

I plan to make the extra Buildbot step copy the generated  
documentation to someplace web-accessible.

- Charles

2009/7/28 Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>
> On Jul 28, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Arnaud Quette wrote:
>
>  some testing around the NUT Packager Guide to validate the general
>> approach of the new documentation.
>> The shell script is there to track the command line used to generate
the
>> HTML output, and the generated HTML file to show the result.
>>
>
> Hi Arnaud,
>
> would it be OK for me to merge the contents of the shell script into
> docs/Makefile.am?
>
> I plan to make the extra Buildbot step copy the generated documentation to
> someplace web-accessible.
>
though this is the aim (very) soon, ATM I prefer to keep the simple shell
script for testing quickly and avoiding to call automake.

btw, for the User and Developer Guides (not applicable to the Packager one),
I'm thinking about using the combined document approach (eg having a
developer.txt that simply includes 1 file per chapters). the drawback of
this is that we can have a header in this file. but we can have this header
as a comment and put all authors in the main file. I've not validated this,
but we might have to use the .xml file to declare multiple authors...
comments and thought on your side?

Arnaud
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/nut-upsdev/attachments/20090728/1477fc38/attachment.htm>