Re: [Evolution-hackers] future of evolution user docs.

[Matthew Barnes <mbarnes redhat com>]

On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 17:00 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> The doc team here uses Frame and it has only an export to xml and so
> syncing from the commits/svn is no way possible, unless the frame is
> modified manually. If there are any better alternative that can be used,
> lemme know, I can try and propose to use for Evolution. Even otherwise,
> we try our best not to overwrite any commits, instead we incorporate
> them and do the commit. There were exceptions before, I hope that won't
> continue. But, I'm open for alternative solutions if any. 

I think the core issue here is what is considered the "master" copy of
the documentation.  This being an open-source project, the master copy
*should* be the DocBook sources in GNOME Subversion.  It sounds to me
like the master copy is some proprietary-formatted document locked away
inside Novell.  This creates a bottleneck for community contributions to
the documentation.  Approved patches should not have to flow through a
single gatekeeper.

I don't care what tool we use to maintain the docs but the work flow
should be similar to any other source code change: checkout or import
the master copy from Subversion, make your changes, and merge them back
into the master copy.  If FrameMaker is not conducive to that kind of
work flow then we should look for a different tool, even if that means
editing DocBook sources by hand.

Matthew Barnes