summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/docs/arno/other_options_for_docu_gen.rst
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorSofia Wallin <sofia.wallin@ericsson.com>2016-04-11 14:37:07 +0200
committerSofia Wallin <sofia.wallin@ericsson.com>2016-04-11 14:37:07 +0200
commit0245b9b2815b28d70f10dab59e0cea0b8ceef726 (patch)
treeb3daa321aedd96303458ca7d902ddf54e630456a /docs/arno/other_options_for_docu_gen.rst
parentcd09f8e977b8e4f1cc91106ad820bb475d1fa589 (diff)
Removed the folder "Arno" from the docs repo.
Change-Id: Id87d5f81d0883c3d24a07a4ab5de7be4f094a40b Signed-off-by: Sofia Wallin <sofia.wallin@ericsson.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/arno/other_options_for_docu_gen.rst')
-rw-r--r--docs/arno/other_options_for_docu_gen.rst89
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 89 deletions
diff --git a/docs/arno/other_options_for_docu_gen.rst b/docs/arno/other_options_for_docu_gen.rst
deleted file mode 100644
index 596f39429..000000000
--- a/docs/arno/other_options_for_docu_gen.rst
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,89 +0,0 @@
-Other options to generate documentation that we tested
--------------------------------------------------------
-
-**Doxygen plugin -> HTML published plugin (html)/ LaTeX (pdf)**
-
-Description: This was the first discovered method
-
-* html: using Doxygen plugin + HTML publisher
- It involves some customization at doxygen level + custom html header/footer
-
-* pdf: it generates a .pdf using latex
-* Input files: .md , .rst
-* Output: .html & .pdf
-* Pros:
-
- - standard tools: doxygen, html publisher, LaTeX suite
- - doxygen plugin available in Jenkins, you just need to install it;
- html publisher plugin available in Jenkins, you just need to install it
- - destination files are generated fast
- - standard reStructuredText or Markdown
-
-* Cons:
-
- - takes some time to customize the output in matters of template,
- requires custom html header/footer
- - latex suite is quite substantial in amount of packages and consumed space (around 1.2 GB)
-
-* Tested: roughly, functional tests only
-
-**Maven & clouddocs-maven-plugin (actually used to generate openstack-manuals)**
-
-Description: It represents the standard tool to generate Openstack documentation manuals,
-uses maven, maven plugins, clouddocs-maven-plugins;
-location of finally generated files is the object of a small Bash script
-that will reside as Post-actions
-
-* Input files: .xml
-* Output: .html & .pdf
-* Pros:
-
- - quite easy for initial setup
- - uses openstack documentation generation flows as for
- openstack-manuals (clouddocs-maven-plugin),
- maven installs all you need generate the documentation
-
-* Cons:
-
- - could be tricky to generate a custom layout,
- knowledge about Maven plugins required, .pom editing
- - dependent of multiple maven plugins
- - input files are .xml and xml editing knowledge is required
-
-* Tested: roughly, functional tests only
-
-**Sphinx & LaTeX suite**
-
-Description: The easiest to install, the cleanest in matter of folder & files structure,
-uses standard tools available in repositories;
-location of finally generated files is the object of a small Bash script that will
-reside as Post-actions
-
-* Input files: .rst as default
-* Output: .html & .pdf
-* Pros:
-
- - standard tools: Python Sphinx, LaTeX suite
- - destination files are generated fast
- - standard reStructuredText as default; other inputs can be configured
- - Sphinx's installation is very clean in matters of folder structure;
- the cleanest from all tested variants
- - latex suite is also easy to install via yum/apt and available in general repos
- - everyone is migration from other tools to Spinx lately;
- it provides more control and better looking documentation
- - can be used also for source-code documentation, specially if you use Python
-
-* Cons:
-
- - takes some time to customize the output in matters of template, requires custom html header/footer
- - latex suite is quite substantial in amount of packages and consumed space (around 1.2 GB)
-
-* Tested: roughly, functional tests only
-
-
-**Documentation tracking**
-
-Revision: _sha1_
-
-Build date: _date_
-