Hi all,
The chairs are very pleased to announce that OCCI has a new Secretary.
Please join me in welcoming Rick Clark from Rackspace. Previously
with Canonical, Rick has a long track record of working with open
communities. We are thrilled that he has come on board.
Those of you going to OSCON this year will be able to meet Rick:
http://www.oscon.com/oscon2010/public/schedule/speaker/14781
Best wishes
alexis
Hi @all,
Since DocBook hasn't turned out to be the best tool for editing our
specs I wanted to bring up the discussion on how the following revision
should be edited. I guess we have several options - and feel free to add
more:
* Word/OpenOffice
Pro: Ease of use (Templates available)
Contra: Merging and version control
* Latex
Pro: Merging, version control easy (Andre could help with templates)
Contra: Not so easy to use
* Plain TXT files in Wiki --> then use a tool for formatting when
finished...
Pro: Easy editable
Contra: Not so cool for graphics etc. (formatting)
Feel free to add more and state you preference - It would be cool if in
future a lot of people can help edit the specs.
Cheers,
-Thijs
--
Thijs Metsch
Senior Software Engineer Grid and Cloud Technology
Platform Computing GmbH
Europaring 60
D-40878 Ratingen
http://www.platform.comhttp://www.nohuddleoffense.de/ - http://www.twitter.com/befreax
Here are my 2 cents on this subject of editing tools and version control.
Microsoft Office/Open Office are commonly known tools and prevalent usage is
apparent throughout our community. It is true version control can be weak
for a group. If necessary, we can work out a version control process.
Both Google document tools and Microsoft Office Live appear to perform well
initially, though I have yet to use either of them in a professional
collaborative fashion with a working group such as this. These tools are
well worth considering.
r,
Eugene
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:00 AM, <occi-wg-request(a)ogf.org> wrote:
> Send occi-wg mailing list submissions to
> occi-wg(a)ogf.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> occi-wg-request(a)ogf.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> occi-wg-owner(a)ogf.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of occi-wg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Editorial tool (Thijs Metsch)
> 2. Re: Editorial tool (Andre Merzky)
> 3. Re: Editorial tool (Edmonds, AndrewX)
> 4. Re: Editorial tool (Alexis Richardson)
> 5. Re: Editorial tool (Gary Mazz)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 03:37:22 -0400
> From: "Thijs Metsch" <tmetsch(a)platform.com>
> Subject: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> To: <occi-wg(a)ogf.org>
> Message-ID:
> <
> E2AC825D4FC7764DA86D9C8ECA27A2DE043EB077(a)catoexm05.noam.corp.platform.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi @all,
>
> Since DocBook hasn't turned out to be the best tool for editing our
> specs I wanted to bring up the discussion on how the following revision
> should be edited. I guess we have several options - and feel free to add
> more:
>
> * Word/OpenOffice=20
> Pro: Ease of use (Templates available)
> Contra: Merging and version control
>
> * Latex
> Pro: Merging, version control easy (Andre could help with templates)
> Contra: Not so easy to use
>
> * Plain TXT files in Wiki --> then use a tool for formatting when
> finished...
> Pro: Easy editable
> Contra: Not so cool for graphics etc. (formatting)
>
> Feel free to add more and state you preference - It would be cool if in
> future a lot of people can help edit the specs.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Thijs
>
> --
> Thijs Metsch
> Senior Software Engineer Grid and Cloud Technology
> Platform Computing GmbH
> Europaring 60
> D-40878 Ratingen
> http://www.platform.com
>
> http://www.nohuddleoffense.de/ - http://www.twitter.com/befreax
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:41:04 +0200
> From: Andre Merzky <andre(a)merzky.net>
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> To: Thijs Metsch <tmetsch(a)platform.com>
> Cc: occi-wg(a)ogf.org
> Message-ID: <20100701084104.GH68399@jonas>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Quoting [Thijs Metsch] (Jul 01 2010):
> > Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 03:37:22 -0400
> > From: "Thijs Metsch" <tmetsch(a)platform.com>
> > To: <occi-wg(a)ogf.org>
> > Subject: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> >
> > Hi @all,
> >
> > Since DocBook hasn't turned out to be the best tool for editing our
> > specs I wanted to bring up the discussion on how the following revision
> > should be edited. I guess we have several options - and feel free to add
> > more:
> >
> > * Word/OpenOffice
> > Pro: Ease of use (Templates available)
> > Contra: Merging and version control
> >
> > * Latex
> > Pro: Merging, version control easy (Andre could help with templates)
> > Contra: Not so easy to use
> >
> > * Plain TXT files in Wiki --> then use a tool for formatting when
> > finished...
> > Pro: Easy editable
> > Contra: Not so cool for graphics etc. (formatting)
>
> Google docs is another option I guess, although you cannot use the
> GF accounts that way.
>
> Best, Andre.
>
>
> > Feel free to add more and state you preference - It would be cool if in
> > future a lot of people can help edit the specs.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > -Thijs
>
> --
> Nothing is ever easy.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:55:31 +0100
> From: "Edmonds, AndrewX" <andrewx.edmonds(a)intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> To: Andre Merzky <andre(a)merzky.net>, Thijs Metsch
> <tmetsch(a)platform.com>
> Cc: "occi-wg(a)ogf.org" <occi-wg(a)ogf.org>
> Message-ID:
> <
> DAFA889EB3BE6243AEF55CFEE82D68A401B359E59B(a)irsmsx502.ger.corp.intel.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> - Text might be painful given we need to construct tables, markdown
> doesn'=
> t help out here.
> - I like the idea of google docs; revision history, accessible, no merge
> i=
> ssues, collaborative
> - Latex, great for those who value & know it, PITA for those who've to
> lea=
> rn it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: occi-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf
> Of=
> Andre Merzky
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 9:41 AM
> To: Thijs Metsch
> Cc: occi-wg(a)ogf.org
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
>
> Quoting [Thijs Metsch] (Jul 01 2010):
> > Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 03:37:22 -0400
> > From: "Thijs Metsch" <tmetsch(a)platform.com>
> > To: <occi-wg(a)ogf.org>
> > Subject: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> >=20
> > Hi @all,
> >=20
> > Since DocBook hasn't turned out to be the best tool for editing our
> > specs I wanted to bring up the discussion on how the following revision
> > should be edited. I guess we have several options - and feel free to add
> > more:
> >=20
> > * Word/OpenOffice=20
> > Pro: Ease of use (Templates available)
> > Contra: Merging and version control
> >=20
> > * Latex
> > Pro: Merging, version control easy (Andre could help with templates)
> > Contra: Not so easy to use
> >=20
> > * Plain TXT files in Wiki --> then use a tool for formatting when
> > finished...
> > Pro: Easy editable
> > Contra: Not so cool for graphics etc. (formatting)
>
> Google docs is another option I guess, although you cannot use the
> GF accounts that way.
>
> Best, Andre.
>
>
> > Feel free to add more and state you preference - It would be cool if in
> > future a lot of people can help edit the specs.
> >=20
> > Cheers,
> >=20
> > -Thijs
>
> --=20
> Nothing is ever easy.
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg(a)ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Ireland Limited (Branch)
> Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland
> Registered Number: E902934
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 13:24:34 +0100
> From: Alexis Richardson <alexis(a)rabbitmq.com>
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> To: Andre Merzky <andre(a)merzky.net>
> Cc: occi-wg(a)ogf.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimzUr6qdqeErkG8yUP44h_Npfnn_ss9nGDtPvWh(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> +1 for google docs.
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Andre Merzky <andre(a)merzky.net> wrote:
> > Quoting [Thijs Metsch] (Jul 01 2010):
> >> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 03:37:22 -0400
> >> From: "Thijs Metsch" <tmetsch(a)platform.com>
> >> To: <occi-wg(a)ogf.org>
> >> Subject: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> >>
> >> Hi @all,
> >>
> >> Since DocBook hasn't turned out to be the best tool for editing our
> >> specs I wanted to bring up the discussion on how the following revision
> >> should be edited. I guess we have several options - and feel free to add
> >> more:
> >>
> >> * Word/OpenOffice
> >> Pro: Ease of use (Templates available)
> >> Contra: Merging and version control
> >>
> >> * Latex
> >> Pro: Merging, version control easy (Andre could help with templates)
> >> Contra: Not so easy to use
> >>
> >> * Plain TXT files in Wiki --> then use a tool for formatting when
> >> finished...
> >> Pro: Easy editable
> >> Contra: Not so cool for graphics etc. (formatting)
> >
> > Google docs is another option I guess, although you cannot use the
> > GF accounts that way.
> >
> > Best, Andre.
> >
> >
> >> Feel free to add more and state you preference - It would be cool if in
> >> future a lot of people can help edit the specs.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> -Thijs
> >
> > --
> > Nothing is ever easy.
> > _______________________________________________
> > occi-wg mailing list
> > occi-wg(a)ogf.org
> > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 07:31:37 -0600
> From: Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> To: Thijs Metsch <Thijs.Metsch(a)Sun.COM>
> Cc: Alexis Richardson <alexis(a)rabbitmq.com>, occi-wg(a)ogf.org
> Message-ID: <4C2C98B9.5030708(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> +1 OO
> Documents can be saved in raw XML format, although the directory
> structure is a little complicated. OO Writer does have a convenient
> merge functions, versioning, comments and review. Diffs are done via
> "Edit->Compare Document", I think compare works as a command line,
> although I never needed to try it. The ODF (odt) document format is
> just compressed xml. Mercurial has diff scripts for odt documents,
> although hidden metadata is exposed and makes reviewing Mercurial diffs
> challenging. It runs well on MAC, Vista/x64, OpenSolaris, FreeBSD and
> most Linux distributions. Supports master documents, integrates with
> spreadsheets and drawing tools. Outputs XML and there is third party
> integration into wikis
> OO Drawbacks, It can be slow in systems with low available memory,
> another office framework to install, susceptible to JVM quirks.
>
> Google doc require to be connected, difficult in the air, anywhere else
> you cannot be connected.
>
> Latex: We may as well stay with docbook
>
> Word, if M$ would donate licenses to all editors
>
> Plain text/Wiki: Collaboration and simultaneous editing could be dicey
> depending on wiki and editor. Most wiki change tracking not intended for
> collaborative and group review processes.
>
> Personally, I think google docs is not mature enough for a production
> environment.
>
> cheers,
> gary
>
> Alexis Richardson wrote:
> > +1 for google docs.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Andre Merzky <andre(a)merzky.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Quoting [Thijs Metsch] (Jul 01 2010):
> >>
> >>> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 03:37:22 -0400
> >>> From: "Thijs Metsch" <tmetsch(a)platform.com>
> >>> To: <occi-wg(a)ogf.org>
> >>> Subject: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> >>>
> >>> Hi @all,
> >>>
> >>> Since DocBook hasn't turned out to be the best tool for editing our
> >>> specs I wanted to bring up the discussion on how the following revision
> >>> should be edited. I guess we have several options - and feel free to
> add
> >>> more:
> >>>
> >>> * Word/OpenOffice
> >>> Pro: Ease of use (Templates available)
> >>> Contra: Merging and version control
> >>>
> >>> * Latex
> >>> Pro: Merging, version control easy (Andre could help with templates)
> >>> Contra: Not so easy to use
> >>>
> >>> * Plain TXT files in Wiki --> then use a tool for formatting when
> >>> finished...
> >>> Pro: Easy editable
> >>> Contra: Not so cool for graphics etc. (formatting)
> >>>
> >> Google docs is another option I guess, although you cannot use the
> >> GF accounts that way.
> >>
> >> Best, Andre.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Feel free to add more and state you preference - It would be cool if in
> >>> future a lot of people can help edit the specs.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> -Thijs
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Nothing is ever easy.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> occi-wg mailing list
> >> occi-wg(a)ogf.org
> >> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > occi-wg mailing list
> > occi-wg(a)ogf.org
> > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg(a)ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
>
> End of occi-wg Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1
> **************************************
>
--
v/r,
Eugene Luster
