[occi-wg] occi-wg Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1
Eugene Luster
eugene.luster at r2ad.com
Thu Jul 1 15:54:30 CDT 2010
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 at ogf.org> wrote:
> Send occi-wg mailing list submissions to
> occi-wg at 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 at ogf.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> occi-wg-owner at 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 at platform.com>
> Subject: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> To: <occi-wg at ogf.org>
> Message-ID:
> <
> E2AC825D4FC7764DA86D9C8ECA27A2DE043EB077 at 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 at merzky.net>
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> To: Thijs Metsch <tmetsch at platform.com>
> Cc: occi-wg at ogf.org
> Message-ID: <20100701084104.GH68399 at 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 at platform.com>
> > To: <occi-wg at 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 at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> To: Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net>, Thijs Metsch
> <tmetsch at platform.com>
> Cc: "occi-wg at ogf.org" <occi-wg at ogf.org>
> Message-ID:
> <
> DAFA889EB3BE6243AEF55CFEE82D68A401B359E59B at 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 at ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf
> Of=
> Andre Merzky
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 9:41 AM
> To: Thijs Metsch
> Cc: occi-wg at 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 at platform.com>
> > To: <occi-wg at 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 at 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 at rabbitmq.com>
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> To: Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net>
> Cc: occi-wg at ogf.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimzUr6qdqeErkG8yUP44h_Npfnn_ss9nGDtPvWh at 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 at merzky.net> wrote:
> > Quoting [Thijs Metsch] (Jul 01 2010):
> >> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 03:37:22 -0400
> >> From: "Thijs Metsch" <tmetsch at platform.com>
> >> To: <occi-wg at 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 at 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 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Editorial tool
> To: Thijs Metsch <Thijs.Metsch at Sun.COM>
> Cc: Alexis Richardson <alexis at rabbitmq.com>, occi-wg at ogf.org
> Message-ID: <4C2C98B9.5030708 at 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 at merzky.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Quoting [Thijs Metsch] (Jul 01 2010):
> >>
> >>> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 03:37:22 -0400
> >>> From: "Thijs Metsch" <tmetsch at platform.com>
> >>> To: <occi-wg at 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 at ogf.org
> >> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > occi-wg mailing list
> > occi-wg at ogf.org
> > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
>
> End of occi-wg Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1
> **************************************
>
--
v/r,
Eugene Luster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20100701/72ab4ec1/attachment.html
More information about the occi-wg
mailing list