1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
|
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
|
