[bt-devel] icons + etc

[Fred Saalbach]

Martin Gruner wrote:

> > I am a beginner at this.  You are correct about needint to keep the
> > repository and sourceforge docs in sync.
>
> I suggest the following:
> Apart from the dev docs, that which is is of general interest will be kept at
> sourceforge. I think of requirements, install instructions etc. These are
> things which do not belong into a handbook imo. The handbook should describe
> how to use the program.
> We should still pull down some of the latest versions of the online docs (can
> be updated & edited by several people, making administration easy) and
> include them (pure HTML) in the repository. Like install instructions, faq,
> known bugs etc.
> What do you think?

The documentation for BT 1.0 was all done in docbook.  It makes sense to
continue to do some parts that way.  I can break it back up into parts and the
parts can be used or not as seems best.  If we take that route the help button
in bibletime will need to point to the beginning of each document.

As the generateion process kdb2html regenerates the entire set of documents it
has been conveniant to use CVS to upload the results all at once.  If the
editing is done directly on the HTML, the HTML and docbook would be out of
sync.  I will need to ponder this abit.

The installation information could be copied in as text or kept in HTML, but it
seems like the readme at top level should be identical to the instructions on
how to install bibletime.


>
>
> > I am finished with BT 1.0 docs.  I updated a few pictures in the search
> > section, and as things are in translation I am leaving the both the
> > sourceforge and local repository alone.
>
> May I take this opportunity to thank you for your valuable work. Thank you
> for sacrificing your time. Without you 1.0 would not have been possible yet
> and not in this quality. I think at least Joachim agrees.

It has been a pleasure

>
>
> > I had not tried view+edit  I will hunt around and see if I can figure it
> > out. If it requires staying on line while editing it may not be practical
> > (only one phone line here).
>
> It does not. Just test. You can edit a document by copying the source from a
> text field into your preferred app, going offline, editing, going online and
> pasting in the updated version.
>
> Do you like this mechanism?
> What is interesting is that anybody (even non sourceforge members) can submit
> a new documentation for bibletime there. It will then be placed in queue for
> review of one of the doc admins. But we may not need this. ;)

I will let you know when I have time to try it out.  Not today.

>
>
> Martin

--
Best Regards
Fred Saalbach
saalbach@sybercom.net