Hi all,
I've seen too much people being redirected to www.centos.org/docs while asking something specific in the #centos channel, and sometimes it will fail, just because those people ask for example details about kvm and that kvm isn't included in the 5.2 virtualization guide that is hosted on the centos server. What does need to be done to include newer doc on www.centos.org/docs, that is in-line with the docs available upstream ? For example , i see that Johnny just removed a s"hadow man logo" in the header and a "red hat documentation" link+icon He also added a kind of 'disclaimer' in the footer. Is there something else to be done ? If i consider the 5.5 technical notes that are on the centos docs server, i still see a "shadow man" logo on the first page ...
On 10/04/2010 05:29 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
What does need to be done to include newer doc on www.centos.org/docs, that is in-line with the docs available upstream ?
Download the docs from their site, look at the license and workout licensing implications - afaict, they have actually made it easier than it used to be. Reformat so that all urls point internally, check and ensure all the images that need to be retained are retained, the rest discarded / replaced with the relevant stuff.
For example , i see that Johnny just removed a s"hadow man logo" in the header and a "red hat documentation" link+icon He also added a kind of 'disclaimer' in the footer. Is there something else to be done ? If i consider the 5.5 technical notes that are on the centos docs server, i still see a "shadow man" logo on the first page ...
Dont go by what was done in the past, the licensing for the docs has changed since then ( at upstream ).
Tru recently did some docs setup, it might be worth syncing up with him for more info on the specifics.
- KB
Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 10/04/2010 05:29 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
What does need to be done to include newer doc on www.centos.org/docs, that is in-line with the docs available upstream ?
Download the docs from their site, look at the license and workout licensing implications - afaict, they have actually made it easier than it used to be. Reformat so that all urls point internally, check and ensure all the images that need to be retained are retained, the rest discarded / replaced with the relevant stuff.
For example , i see that Johnny just removed a s"hadow man logo" in the header and a "red hat documentation" link+icon He also added a kind of 'disclaimer' in the footer. Is there something else to be done ? If i consider the 5.5 technical notes that are on the centos docs server, i still see a "shadow man" logo on the first page ...
Dont go by what was done in the past, the licensing for the docs has changed since then ( at upstream ).
Tru recently did some docs setup, it might be worth syncing up with him for more info on the specifics.
- KB
It seems that all Upstream documentations are now released under a Creative Commons Attribution–Share Alike 3.0 Unported license ("CC-BY-SA"). When I read a Red Had doc, for example the Deployment Guide (http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5/html/Deployment...), they ask "if you distribute this document or an adaptation of it, you must provide the URL for the original version." By looking at the CC-BY-SA license, it seems that we would be allowed to "share" the doc. So my question is : if Red Hat asks only to 'provide the URL for the original version' , why not just putting links on the http://www.centos.org/docs page that point back to the corresponding doc on docs.redhat.com ? My proposal is so just to have a link (to the html and pdf format) and saying in the link name that it's the original Red Hat documentation (that applies to CentOS) and have other (internal) links for our own CentOS doc, for example the Release Notes like http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.5 .
Talking about the CentOS Release Notes, I even see that 5.4 and the mentioned above 5.5 RN aren't even linked on our www.centos.org/docs/5 page ... :-( Can someone at least fix that ASAP ?
Other ideas about the link to the Red Hat website are welcome too :-)
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Fabian Arrotin fabian.arrotin@arrfab.net wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 10/04/2010 05:29 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Other ideas about the link to the Red Hat website are welcome too :-)
I have been thinking about this too. Looking at the docs I had the idea that it might be nice to have the actual content somewhere on the wiki, so we don't just copy the static files but take the html and create wiki markup out of it. Like this we could actually add stuff and create a better experience. I looked into writing a parser to do this but it turned out to be quite complicated. But if people think this is a good idea I could try again.
Cheers Didi
On 10/13/2010 09:34 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
My proposal is so just to have a link (to the html and pdf format) and saying in the link name that it's the original Red Hat documentation (that applies to CentOS) and have other (internal) links for our own CentOS doc, for example the Release Notes like http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.5 .
I am not all that keen on linking to red hat docs directly, we dont want pople to get the impression that everything from red hat just works as is on CentOS.
Didi's idea of importing the content into a wiki editable format is cool - but being able to just do comments on the docs might be a good start ( disqus anyone ? wont take more than 2 minutes to setup )
- KB
Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 10/13/2010 09:34 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
My proposal is so just to have a link (to the html and pdf format) and saying in the link name that it's the original Red Hat documentation (that applies to CentOS) and have other (internal) links for our own CentOS doc, for example the Release Notes like http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.5 .
I am not all that keen on linking to red hat docs directly, we dont want pople to get the impression that everything from red hat just works as is on CentOS.
Didi's idea of importing the content into a wiki editable format is cool
- but being able to just do comments on the docs might be a good start (
disqus anyone ? wont take more than 2 minutes to setup )
- KB
Hi Karan,
Is is also just 2 minutes for someone with write access on the webserver to include the [mentioned above] 5.5 release notes link or do I have to create a bug on http://bugs.centos.org for that ?
On 10/18/2010 05:15 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Is is also just 2 minutes for someone with write access on the webserver to include the [mentioned above] 5.5 release notes link or do I have to create a bug on http://bugs.centos.org for that ?
That wasn't very specific, so no idea what you are talking about.
Are you referring to www.centos.org/docs/5/ ? I see the 5.5 Release notes are already there. No idea why the content is duplicated at the bottom as well, they both look to be the same - at-least after a brief examination.
- KB
Fabian Arrotin wrote: <replying to myself just to quote the relevant part>
My proposal is so just to have a link (to the html and pdf format) and saying in the link name that it's the original Red Hat documentation (that applies to CentOS) and have other (internal) links for our own CentOS doc, for example the Release Notes like http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.5 .
Talking about the CentOS Release Notes, I even see that 5.4 and the mentioned above 5.5 RN aren't even linked on our www.centos.org/docs/5 page ... :-( Can someone at least fix that ASAP ?
So I was talking about the CentOS Specific Notes (that you can find at the bottom of the www.centos.org/docs/5 page and that points to existing and corresponding RN on the wiki. Older specific RN are linked, not the 5.4 or 5.5 (that were produced and even translated in some languages)
On 10/18/2010 06:26 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
So I was talking about the CentOS Specific Notes (that you can find at the bottom of the www.centos.org/docs/5 page and that points to existing and corresponding RN on the wiki. Older specific RN are linked, not the 5.4 or 5.5 (that were produced and even translated in some languages)
These kind of things really should be on the qa release checklist :/
I'll try and fix it for now, but am not going to take ownership for the future.
- KB
-
didi -
Fabian Arrotin -
Karanbir Singh