Sqoop, mail # dev - Re: [DISCUSS] documentation formats

Re: [DISCUSS] documentation formats

Jagat Singh 2012-06-21, 03:56

We should avoid xml files at they consume lot of time managing the
documents.

How about

http://maven.apache.org/doxia/references/apt-format.html

Hadoop core has moved away from xml docs to maven apt types docs.

Also what were the issues with old sqoop1 docs , those were text based and
managing those files was easy thing i guess.
On 21-Jun-2012 5:01 AM, "Cheolsoo Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> +1 for RST.
>
> I don't enjoy editing xml files. But if xdoc provides
> better integration with maven, I wouldn't mind using it either.
>
> Cheolsoo
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Kathleen Ting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Sqoop Devs -
> >
> > In regards to implementing a documentation system for Sqoop2 (
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-492), I am leaning towards
> > either RST (http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html) or xdoc (
> > maven.apache.org/doxia/references/xdoc-format.html).
> >
> > Do you have a preference between RST or xdoc?
> >
> > Or feel free to propose another documentation format for consideration.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kathleen
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] documentation formats

Kathleen Ting 2012-06-21, 05:36

Thanks Cheolsoo and Jagat for your feedback.

Jagat, in regards to your question about what was the issue with how the
Sqoop1 docs were generated: Sqoop1 docs were generated with a native
tool, AsciiDoc.
For Sqoop2, we need a document system that does not require the user to
install a native tool.

Other Sqoop Devs - what's your document system preference?

Regards, Kathleen

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Jagat Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> We should avoid xml files at they consume lot of time managing the
> documents.
>
> How about
>
> http://maven.apache.org/doxia/references/apt-format.html
>
> Hadoop core has moved away from xml docs to maven apt types docs.
>
> Also what were the issues with old sqoop1 docs , those were text based and
> managing those files was easy thing i guess.
>
>
> On 21-Jun-2012 5:01 AM, "Cheolsoo Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +1 for RST.
> >
> > I don't enjoy editing xml files. But if xdoc provides
> > better integration with maven, I wouldn't mind using it either.
> >
> > Cheolsoo
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Kathleen Ting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Sqoop Devs -
> > >
> > > In regards to implementing a documentation system for Sqoop2 (
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-492), I am leaning towards
> > > either RST (http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html) or xdoc (
> > > maven.apache.org/doxia/references/xdoc-format.html).
> > >
> > > Do you have a preference between RST or xdoc?
> > >
> > > Or feel free to propose another documentation format for consideration.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kathleen
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] documentation formats

Jonathan Hsieh 2012-06-21, 17:05

the problems with asciidoc (used on flume and sqoop) is that newer versions of asciidoc and different versions on different distros (ubuntu vs centos) didn't render things the same way.

hbase-land uses docbook which cannot really advocate for or against -- it is XML, but at least the format is stable.

if every thing is in maven land now, I agree with using something that the iron fist of maven approves of. :)

Jon
Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 20, 2012, at 23:36, Kathleen Ting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks Cheolsoo and Jagat for your feedback.
>
> Jagat, in regards to your question about what was the issue with how the
> Sqoop1 docs were generated: Sqoop1 docs were generated with a native
> tool, AsciiDoc.
> For Sqoop2, we need a document system that does not require the user to
> install a native tool.
>
> Other Sqoop Devs - what's your document system preference?
>
> Regards, Kathleen
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Jagat Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We should avoid xml files at they consume lot of time managing the
>> documents.
>>
>> How about
>>
>> http://maven.apache.org/doxia/references/apt-format.html
>>
>> Hadoop core has moved away from xml docs to maven apt types docs.
>>
>> Also what were the issues with old sqoop1 docs , those were text based and
>> managing those files was easy thing i guess.
>>
>>
>> On 21-Jun-2012 5:01 AM, "Cheolsoo Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for RST.
>>>
>>> I don't enjoy editing xml files. But if xdoc provides
>>> better integration with maven, I wouldn't mind using it either.
>>>
>>> Cheolsoo
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Kathleen Ting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Sqoop Devs -
>>>>
>>>> In regards to implementing a documentation system for Sqoop2 (
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-492), I am leaning towards
>>>> either RST (http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html) or xdoc (
>>>> maven.apache.org/doxia/references/xdoc-format.html).
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a preference between RST or xdoc?
>>>>
>>>> Or feel free to propose another documentation format for consideration.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Kathleen
>>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] documentation formats

Jarek Jarcec Cecho 2012-06-22, 06:19

Hi Kate,
please accept my apology for late response.

I do not have any strong preference to any particular documentation system. I would just prefer to have plain text files rather than more complex structures (like the mentioned XML).

Jarcec

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:36:44PM -0700, Kathleen Ting wrote:
> Thanks Cheolsoo and Jagat for your feedback.
>
> Jagat, in regards to your question about what was the issue with how the
> Sqoop1 docs were generated: Sqoop1 docs were generated with a native
> tool, AsciiDoc.
> For Sqoop2, we need a document system that does not require the user to
> install a native tool.
>
> Other Sqoop Devs - what's your document system preference?
>
> Regards, Kathleen
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Jagat Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We should avoid xml files at they consume lot of time managing the
> > documents.
> >
> > How about
> >
> > http://maven.apache.org/doxia/references/apt-format.html
> >
> > Hadoop core has moved away from xml docs to maven apt types docs.
> >
> > Also what were the issues with old sqoop1 docs , those were text based and
> > managing those files was easy thing i guess.
> >
> >
> > On 21-Jun-2012 5:01 AM, "Cheolsoo Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for RST.
> > >
> > > I don't enjoy editing xml files. But if xdoc provides
> > > better integration with maven, I wouldn't mind using it either.
> > >
> > > Cheolsoo
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Kathleen Ting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Sqoop Devs -
> > > >
> > > > In regards to implementing a documentation system for Sqoop2 (
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-492), I am leaning towards
> > > > either RST (http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html) or xdoc (
> > > > maven.apache.org/doxia/references/xdoc-format.html).
> > > >
> > > > Do you have a preference between RST or xdoc?
> > > >
> > > > Or feel free to propose another documentation format for consideration.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Kathleen
> > > >
> > >
> >

Re: [DISCUSS] documentation formats

Olivier Lamy 2012-06-22, 08:36

Just note maven xdoc has more features :-).
For screenshot/images you don't have any way to specify width or
height with apt whereas it's possible with xdoc.

IMHO It depends on doc use case. And with maven it's possible to mix
apt and xdoc.

2012/6/22 Jarek Jarcec Cecho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Kate,
> please accept my apology for late response.
>
> I do not have any strong preference to any particular documentation system. I would just prefer to have plain text files rather than more complex structures (like the mentioned XML).
>
> Jarcec
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:36:44PM -0700, Kathleen Ting wrote:
>> Thanks Cheolsoo and Jagat for your feedback.
>>
>> Jagat, in regards to your question about what was the issue with how the
>> Sqoop1 docs were generated: Sqoop1 docs were generated with a native
>> tool, AsciiDoc.
>> For Sqoop2, we need a document system that does not require the user to
>> install a native tool.
>>
>> Other Sqoop Devs - what's your document system preference?
>>
>> Regards, Kathleen
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Jagat Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > We should avoid xml files at they consume lot of time managing the
>> > documents.
>> >
>> > How about
>> >
>> > http://maven.apache.org/doxia/references/apt-format.html
>> >
>> > Hadoop core has moved away from xml docs to maven apt types docs.
>> >
>> > Also what were the issues with old sqoop1 docs , those were text based and
>> > managing those files was easy thing i guess.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 21-Jun-2012 5:01 AM, "Cheolsoo Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1 for RST.
>> > >
>> > > I don't enjoy editing xml files. But if xdoc provides
>> > > better integration with maven, I wouldn't mind using it either.
>> > >
>> > > Cheolsoo
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Kathleen Ting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Sqoop Devs -
>> > > >
>> > > > In regards to implementing a documentation system for Sqoop2 (
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-492), I am leaning towards
>> > > > either RST (http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html) or xdoc (
>> > > > maven.apache.org/doxia/references/xdoc-format.html).
>> > > >
>> > > > Do you have a preference between RST or xdoc?
>> > > >
>> > > > Or feel free to propose another documentation format for consideration.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > > Kathleen
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >

--
Olivier Lamy
Talend: http://coders.talend.com
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy

Re: [DISCUSS] documentation formats

Arvind Prabhakar 2012-07-10, 08:39

Apologies for jumping in late on this thread. My personal preference is to
use RST, even though I have used xdoc in the past and will be happy to go
with it if that is what gets the most support.

Regards,
Arvind Prabhakar

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Olivier Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Just note maven xdoc has more features :-).
> For screenshot/images you don't have any way to specify width or
> height with apt whereas it's possible with xdoc.
>
> IMHO It depends on doc use case. And with maven it's possible to mix
> apt and xdoc.
>
> 2012/6/22 Jarek Jarcec Cecho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hi Kate,
> > please accept my apology for late response.
> >
> > I do not have any strong preference to any particular documentation
> system. I would just prefer to have plain text files rather than more
> complex structures (like the mentioned XML).
> >
> > Jarcec
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:36:44PM -0700, Kathleen Ting wrote:
> >> Thanks Cheolsoo and Jagat for your feedback.
> >>
> >> Jagat, in regards to your question about what was the issue with how the
> >> Sqoop1 docs were generated: Sqoop1 docs were generated with a native
> >> tool, AsciiDoc.
> >> For Sqoop2, we need a document system that does not require the user to
> >> install a native tool.
> >>
> >> Other Sqoop Devs - what's your document system preference?
> >>
> >> Regards, Kathleen
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Jagat Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > We should avoid xml files at they consume lot of time managing the
> >> > documents.
> >> >
> >> > How about
> >> >
> >> > http://maven.apache.org/doxia/references/apt-format.html
> >> >
> >> > Hadoop core has moved away from xml docs to maven apt types docs.
> >> >
> >> > Also what were the issues with old sqoop1 docs , those were text
> based and
> >> > managing those files was easy thing i guess.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 21-Jun-2012 5:01 AM, "Cheolsoo Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > +1 for RST.
> >> > >
> >> > > I don't enjoy editing xml files. But if xdoc provides
> >> > > better integration with maven, I wouldn't mind using it either.
> >> > >
> >> > > Cheolsoo
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Kathleen Ting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi Sqoop Devs -
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In regards to implementing a documentation system for Sqoop2 (
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-492), I am leaning
> towards
> >> > > > either RST (http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html) or xdoc (
> >> > > > maven.apache.org/doxia/references/xdoc-format.html).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Do you have a preference between RST or xdoc?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Or feel free to propose another documentation format for
> consideration.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards,
> >> > > > Kathleen
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
>
>
>
> --
> Olivier Lamy
> Talend: http://coders.talend.com
> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>

Re: [DISCUSS] documentation formats

Kathleen Ting 2012-08-24, 21:49

Thanks all for the feedback.

Unless there is a strong objection against RST, given its ease-of-use,
let's implement the documentation format for Sqoop2 on RST.

Regards, Kathleen

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Arvind Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apologies for jumping in late on this thread. My personal preference is to
> use RST, even though I have used xdoc in the past and will be happy to go
> with it if that is what gets the most support.
>
> Regards,
> Arvind Prabhakar
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Olivier Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Just note maven xdoc has more features :-).
>> For screenshot/images you don't have any way to specify width or
>> height with apt whereas it's possible with xdoc.
>>
>> IMHO It depends on doc use case. And with maven it's possible to mix
>> apt and xdoc.
>>
>> 2012/6/22 Jarek Jarcec Cecho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > Hi Kate,
>> > please accept my apology for late response.
>> >
>> > I do not have any strong preference to any particular documentation
>> system. I would just prefer to have plain text files rather than more
>> complex structures (like the mentioned XML).
>> >
>> > Jarcec
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:36:44PM -0700, Kathleen Ting wrote:
>> >> Thanks Cheolsoo and Jagat for your feedback.
>> >>
>> >> Jagat, in regards to your question about what was the issue with how the
>> >> Sqoop1 docs were generated: Sqoop1 docs were generated with a native
>> >> tool, AsciiDoc.
>> >> For Sqoop2, we need a document system that does not require the user to
>> >> install a native tool.
>> >>
>> >> Other Sqoop Devs - what's your document system preference?
>> >>
>> >> Regards, Kathleen
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Jagat Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > We should avoid xml files at they consume lot of time managing the
>> >> > documents.
>> >> >
>> >> > How about
>> >> >
>> >> > http://maven.apache.org/doxia/references/apt-format.html
>> >> >
>> >> > Hadoop core has moved away from xml docs to maven apt types docs.
>> >> >
>> >> > Also what were the issues with old sqoop1 docs , those were text
>> based and
>> >> > managing those files was easy thing i guess.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 21-Jun-2012 5:01 AM, "Cheolsoo Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > +1 for RST.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I don't enjoy editing xml files. But if xdoc provides
>> >> > > better integration with maven, I wouldn't mind using it either.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Cheolsoo
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Kathleen Ting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Hi Sqoop Devs -
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > In regards to implementing a documentation system for Sqoop2 (
>> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-492), I am leaning
>> towards
>> >> > > > either RST (http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html) or xdoc (
>> >> > > > maven.apache.org/doxia/references/xdoc-format.html).
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Do you have a preference between RST or xdoc?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Or feel free to propose another documentation format for
>> consideration.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Regards,
>> >> > > > Kathleen
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Olivier Lamy
>> Talend: http://coders.talend.com
>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] documentation formats

Jarek Jarcec Cecho 2012-08-25, 06:39

No objections on my side Kate, thanks for taking this issue!

Jarcec

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 02:49:33PM -0700, Kathleen Ting wrote:
> Thanks all for the feedback.
>
> Unless there is a strong objection against RST, given its ease-of-use,
> let's implement the documentation format for Sqoop2 on RST.
>
> Regards, Kathleen
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Arvind Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Apologies for jumping in late on this thread. My personal preference is to
> > use RST, even though I have used xdoc in the past and will be happy to go
> > with it if that is what gets the most support.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Arvind Prabhakar
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Olivier Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Just note maven xdoc has more features :-).
> >> For screenshot/images you don't have any way to specify width or
> >> height with apt whereas it's possible with xdoc.
> >>
> >> IMHO It depends on doc use case. And with maven it's possible to mix
> >> apt and xdoc.
> >>
> >> 2012/6/22 Jarek Jarcec Cecho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > Hi Kate,
> >> > please accept my apology for late response.
> >> >
> >> > I do not have any strong preference to any particular documentation
> >> system. I would just prefer to have plain text files rather than more
> >> complex structures (like the mentioned XML).
> >> >
> >> > Jarcec
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:36:44PM -0700, Kathleen Ting wrote:
> >> >> Thanks Cheolsoo and Jagat for your feedback.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jagat, in regards to your question about what was the issue with how the
> >> >> Sqoop1 docs were generated: Sqoop1 docs were generated with a native
> >> >> tool, AsciiDoc.
> >> >> For Sqoop2, we need a document system that does not require the user to
> >> >> install a native tool.
> >> >>
> >> >> Other Sqoop Devs - what's your document system preference?
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards, Kathleen
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Jagat Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > We should avoid xml files at they consume lot of time managing the
> >> >> > documents.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How about
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://maven.apache.org/doxia/references/apt-format.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hadoop core has moved away from xml docs to maven apt types docs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Also what were the issues with old sqoop1 docs , those were text
> >> based and
> >> >> > managing those files was easy thing i guess.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 21-Jun-2012 5:01 AM, "Cheolsoo Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > +1 for RST.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I don't enjoy editing xml files. But if xdoc provides
> >> >> > > better integration with maven, I wouldn't mind using it either.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Cheolsoo
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Kathleen Ting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > Hi Sqoop Devs -
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > In regards to implementing a documentation system for Sqoop2 (
> >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-492), I am leaning
> >> towards
> >> >> > > > either RST (http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html) or xdoc (
> >> >> > > > maven.apache.org/doxia/references/xdoc-format.html).
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Do you have a preference between RST or xdoc?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Or feel free to propose another documentation format for
> >> consideration.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Regards,
> >> >> > > > Kathleen
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Olivier Lamy
> >> Talend: http://coders.talend.com
> >> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>

Re: [DISCUSS] documentation formats

Alexander Lorenz 2012-08-25, 07:50

+1

best,
Alex

On Aug 24, 2012, at 11:49 PM, Kathleen Ting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks all for the feedback.
>
> Unless there is a strong objection against RST, given its ease-of-use,
> let's implement the documentation format for Sqoop2 on RST.
>
> Regards, Kathleen
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Arvind Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Apologies for jumping in late on this thread. My personal preference is to
>> use RST, even though I have used xdoc in the past and will be happy to go
>> with it if that is what gets the most support.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arvind Prabhakar
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Olivier Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Just note maven xdoc has more features :-).
>>> For screenshot/images you don't have any way to specify width or
>>> height with apt whereas it's possible with xdoc.
>>>
>>> IMHO It depends on doc use case. And with maven it's possible to mix
>>> apt and xdoc.
>>>
>>> 2012/6/22 Jarek Jarcec Cecho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>> Hi Kate,
>>>> please accept my apology for late response.
>>>>
>>>> I do not have any strong preference to any particular documentation
>>> system. I would just prefer to have plain text files rather than more
>>> complex structures (like the mentioned XML).
>>>>
>>>> Jarcec
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:36:44PM -0700, Kathleen Ting wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Cheolsoo and Jagat for your feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jagat, in regards to your question about what was the issue with how the
>>>>> Sqoop1 docs were generated: Sqoop1 docs were generated with a native
>>>>> tool, AsciiDoc.
>>>>> For Sqoop2, we need a document system that does not require the user to
>>>>> install a native tool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other Sqoop Devs - what's your document system preference?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Kathleen
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Jagat Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We should avoid xml files at they consume lot of time managing the
>>>>>> documents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/doxia/references/apt-format.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hadoop core has moved away from xml docs to maven apt types docs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also what were the issues with old sqoop1 docs , those were text
>>> based and
>>>>>> managing those files was easy thing i guess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21-Jun-2012 5:01 AM, "Cheolsoo Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 for RST.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't enjoy editing xml files. But if xdoc provides
>>>>>>> better integration with maven, I wouldn't mind using it either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheolsoo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Kathleen Ting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Sqoop Devs -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In regards to implementing a documentation system for Sqoop2 (
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-492), I am leaning
>>> towards
>>>>>>>> either RST (http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html) or xdoc (
>>>>>>>> maven.apache.org/doxia/references/xdoc-format.html).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have a preference between RST or xdoc?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or feel free to propose another documentation format for
>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Kathleen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>> Talend: http://coders.talend.com
>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>
--
Alexander Alten-Lorenz
http://mapredit.blogspot.com
German Hadoop LinkedIn Group: http://goo.gl/N8pCF