[OpenAFS-Doc] Final (from Latex) pdf's and html's available

[ted creedon]

Renato, not Esther, was listed on the afs website the official afs person
responsible for the documentation and he had started along the current route
having already reproduced all the docs in Latex.

Perhaps you should talk to him.

You have what you have from me, plus Russ' POD stuff. That's more than a
wish list that may never be done due to lack of skills&interest.

There are already 2 incompatible versions waiting for cvs. If you want a
third that's OK with me. Russ and I can keep our versions in sync..

There will be a current Latex version kept somewhere, there was enough
positive input from some users at the conference to support that.
 
tedc



-----Original Message-----
From: openafs-doc-admin@openafs.org [mailto:openafs-doc-admin@openafs.org]
On Behalf Of Jeffrey Altman
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 5:30 PM
To: ted creedon
Cc: openafs-doc@openafs.org
Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-Doc] Final (from Latex) pdf's and html's available

Ted:

The quoted e-mails were not part of an online discussion.  The only posts
that I see from Renato on any of the openafs mailing lists
(openafs-info) was a reply to you on 1/1/2004 responding to your query for
printable documentation.

The discussion on the openafs-info list starting from your posting of
9/12/2004 did not produce a consensus.   It was primarily a discussion
between you and Tommie Gannert who was working on the Windows HTMLHelp
documentation.   Tommie wanted to use DocBook because of its ability to
generate usable help files for Windows in addition to other output usable on
non-Windows platforms.

Tommie produced a set of output that allowed for autogeneration of the
Windows help files in the Wiki as proof of concept as well as a HTMLHelp
file.  Unfortunately, Tommie has disappeared so I don't know whether the
work he did will end up being usable.

In any case, after the discussion which ended on 9/17/2004, you went and
began a PDF to Tex conversion and requested volunteers to help.  No one
replied to the request on the list.

The next posting on the subject came from you on 1/12/2005 indicating that
you were predominately finished with the work.  Esther at that time
requested copies.   There is no further traffic on the mailing lists.
I assume that there was further traffic between the two of you that occurred
privately.  In fact I know there was because I was cc'd on some of it.

I wish that last week when all of us were in Pittsburgh that we could have
sat down for ten minutes.  It was something I wanted to do.
Unfortunately, my schedule last week was insane with meetings taking place
during every break and meal.

My concern is that you and Esther need to work together on this.   It
is my understanding that Esther is not satisfied with the choice of Latex as
a source format.  However, I can find no such objection made by her to any
of the mailing lists.  On the other hand, I can find no clear consensus on
the mailing lists that the choice of Latex as the canonical source format is
the right one.

I know that you sent some of the PDF -> Latex -> HTML output to Esther and
at one point she commented it was a good start.  What I would like to see
here is an agreement be reached on what the canonical format for
the documentation should be.   I don't want to see documentation be
maintained by separate groups.   In the long run that is a sure fire way
of only making things worse than they are now.

Jeffrey Altman



ted creedon wrote:

> See the Sept 2004 mailing list and the enclosed e-mails with the 
> previous afs doc manager Renato Arruda.