Re: [Usability] The future of gup in developer and bugzilla

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 18:31 +0000, Calum Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 18:44 +0100, Quim Gil wrote:
> > 
> > En/na Calum Benson ha escrit:
> > >  Can you summarise the discussion again? :/
> > 
> > The part that affects GUP starts more or less here:
> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-web-list/2005-December/msg00092.html
> > 
> > The debate moves around the platform to be used to manage wgo: to CVS
> > like until now or to CMS with Drupal (as default candidate). See
> > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb_2fPlatform
> > 
> > By default developer.g.o would move to live.g.o as agreed, but
> > apparently this is not enough for GUP's requirements. In the meantime
> > Shaun said that perhaps we need something more "strcutured" than a wiki
> > to organise and create stable documentation. Drupal has this capacity
> > and even some functionality to export Docbook, but of course it can't
> > generate tarballs etc.

For the record, I'm pretty much completely opposed to relying on
live.gnome.org for any real public-facing stuff.  For internal
planning and sketching, fine.  But it's a wasteland of broken
navigation.  Why should half our site look and feel different
than the rest?

Get a single CMS in place and put everything you can under it,
including all the current developer.gnome.org content.  With a
good CMS, we have all the advantages of a wiki anyway, and the
site will feel unified.

> Hmm yes, true enough.  Have to admit I'd personally be quite happy to
> move away from DocBook (perhaps just to plain old HTML) for the HIG
> anyway, as it's kind of hard to take stylistic advice very seriously
> from a document that looks a bit crap :)  But of course, we lose the
> ability to easily generate PDFs from plain HTML.  (I have similar
> reservations about using anything vaguely wiki based for such large
> documents-- I've yet to see any done well.)  

It's only crap output because the XSLT you're using produces
crap output.  There's nothing inherent about DocBook that makes
the output crap.

> > So we should decide what to do with GUP, considering that developer.g.o
> > will be closed at some point.
> 
> Whatever happened to the whole library.gnome.org concept, btw?  That's
> conceivably the sort of place where stable versions of the HIG et al.
> should live, with (perhaps) development versions taking shape on
> live.gnome.org (ideally with some sort of magic wiki->DocBook
> translation happening at the appropriate time...)

library.gnome.org really needs to happen.  We need a strapping
young lad (or lass) to come and take charge, like Quim has done
so well with the rest of the web space.

--
Shaun