docbook and revision control was Re: Gnome users manual (was: Ubuntu book)

[sparkes]

Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 03:14:34PM +0100, John Levin wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 28 Oct 2004, at 13:23, John Hornbeck wrote:
>>
>>>It is pretty big. It is also all docbook.  If someone wants the task of
>>>changing it over to the wiki feel free.
>>>
>>
>>The link above offers it in two html formats - single page and multiple 
>>pages - and the wiki can handle HTML, right?
> 
> 
> There is an HTML rendering there, but it is simply generated from the
> docbook.  It would not be appropriate to make changes to the HTML, because
> they could not be merged back into the original.
> 
I've had a similar problem today.  I wanted to go from docbook(SGML) to 
ReST so we can use the ReST to write docbook(XML) latter.  The stupidity 
of the whole concept only struck me when I was away from my computer 
doing something completely unrelated.

So I have a question for the doc team and the larger dev community.

Does anyone have any problems with larger docs being done in docbook 
(pref xml version this is the 21st century) and transformed to html for 
presentation in on the site?

It seems that although we have good tools on the site for small doc 
development and teamm working we are currently lacking in tools for 
larger projects.

Do we have access to a revision control server the doc team can use.  I 
prefer SVN but would use anything (even arch ;-) ) but I reserve the 
right to lose all ubuntu towards the first person to say visual source 
safe ;-)

Whatever we use scripts can be written to keep the site up to date but 
we need something where releases of docs can be set so we can work on 
different versions to support stable releases while working on next 
release docs.

any suggestions.

-- 
<davee> "Sparkes, the Pete Best of LugRadio"