Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Proposal: Restructure Training Docs #253

Closed
svx opened this issue Mar 7, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

Proposal: Restructure Training Docs #253

svx opened this issue Mar 7, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@svx
Copy link
Member

svx commented Mar 7, 2017

Once a long time ago @pbauer, @Gomez and @do3cc started with the awesome Mastering Plone Training, since then more and more people jumped in extended material and contributed more awesome trainings.

This is really, really cool, thanks to everyone!

But, yes a but :), sorry for that :)
With all the nice change and additions the structure and the way how the docs are written and ordered changed. This is not bad it is 'just' how it is if you add new content to a existing structure.

For the big training push during the Conference 2016, all these got included into the 'old' structure, which lead of course to interesting new challenges like, order, structure, menus and so on.

Because of this also testing and deploying got slow, dirty and painful :)

I would like to improve all that, but this would mean some 'radical' changes, compared to the way how the docs are now, structured, ordered, written and setup.

Taken that we have still a couple of months, till people start preparing for the next conference, I would like to start asap. so that the new setup/layout would be ready in time.

Overview what I would like to do:

  • splitting the docs into parts according topic
  • one directory per training topic

For above I am talking here about own sphinx setups, but still in the same repo.

  • new main stucture
  • improve reST and wording
  • new test/build and hosting infra
  • improve search ?

Would that be OK, with people ?

@tkimnguyen
Copy link
Sponsor Member

You're the docs genius... lead on!

@pbauer
Copy link
Sponsor Member

pbauer commented Mar 22, 2017

@svx sounds very reasonable.

@stevepiercy
Copy link
Contributor

Closing. With the recent overhaul, I think this issue has been addressed. If not please feel free to reopen.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants