Developer Documentation

[Andrew Eddie]

I'd like to have a frank conversation about the state of our developer documentation, and hopefully reach some agreement on what is the best way to execute.

I'll start by saying I'm not a fan of Mediawiki as a platform for contributing to developer docs. I'm a developer; I'm used to the structure and source control; I don't find I get that with wiki's in general. While there is a lot of good developer content on docs.joomla.org, there is also a lot of bad content (I've already found blatantly wrong pages about JForm fields for example), duplicate content (no less than I think 5 pages describing the difference between all the extension types, all saying the same thing) and an awful lot of clutter (search for JForm and you get a lot of noise from 1.6 API pages that have probably shouldn't be there).

Now, with the Platform and the Framework, right or wrong the maintainers have never supported docs.joomla.org. Maybe that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, but maybe it's just the fact that Mediawiki is not the most appropriate tools for the majority of developers (I think it's absolutely fine for help screens and general CMS tutorials). We have had good success with receiving documentation in the Platform/Framework repository itself and it's easy to keep them up to date in parallel with changes in the code. The markdown format, I think, has been a huge success because it's an extremely lower barrier to entry and you don't have to learn too many rules.

The purpose of this preamble is to introduce a new concept for developer docs using the source control that developer contributors are already familiar with regardless of whether they are using the CMS or the Framework. My experimentation can be found on Github:

https://github.com/eddieajau/joomla-developer-docs

and the final published form uses Github pages and can be found here:

http://eddieajau.github.io/joomla-developer-docs/#/home.md

Obviously this is all very draft but I think it holds a number of advantages over using Mediawiki.

1. It's structured like a book which aligns with how my brain wants to sort through how to find documentation (not everyone thinks that way, but my observations are that a lot of developers do).

2. Because it's structured like a book, we could easily turn it into one.

3. http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/1785-joint-summit-report-nov-7-2013.html mentions difficulties for translators. I'd like to attract translations of dev docs and source control offers some good tools for work out what has changes.

4. I think developers will be more inclined to work with the Github API than the Mediawiki API in extending.

5. It can be curated at the time of contribution. By that I mean the information can be checked for accuracy at the time of submission and also that it's in the right place. A wiki approach allows too much potentially good material to fall into black holes.

There are currently some disadvantages to the current approach. The first is searching but I believe that could be solved with JS based Google searching (and/or other future tools are possible with Github's and custom API, a remote Solr or ElasticSearch engine via a RESTful service for example that gets indexed with a post-commit hook). It does require you know how to use Github, but this is getting easier and easier and Github walks you through doing very simple changes.

So, I'd like to know how to proceed because the Mediawiki just doesn't work for me, and I suspect it doesn't work for the majority of the developer population in terms of enticing them to contribute on a regular basis (and I'd like to look at ways to gamify and incentivise contribution so people get recognised better for their efforts). It's not because the content isn't good (although there is a lot that isn't), but the structure seems all wrong to me. I think my proposal is a better way but I'd prefer to have it under the Joomla banner if possible. If not, that's fine, I'll just keep chipping away at it and garnering interest myself and put it under my Art of Joomla brand (not my preferred option, but whatcha gonna do). I am happy to assume the role of finding a curation and marketing team.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Webdongle]

+1 Andrew 100% agree

[Chris Davenport]

I think the platform for developer documentation is a lot less important than just getting people to write it.

To that end I think the requirement that code contributions must be accompanied by at least basic documentation is important and personally I'd like to see that policy expanded to the CMS too.  (It's harder there because we would want user documentation and help screens as well as developer notes, but even so).

I've always said that people should create the documentation in whatever form they feel comfortable (even handwritten on paper!) and if the maintainers prefer git then that's totally fine.  There is no perfect authoring tool (at least not an open source one).  Neither Github nor MediaWiki nor Joomla or any other platform I've looked at over the years really has what it takes to satisfy all of our requirements (or the range of personal preferences).  So we just have to make the best of what we have.

The approach you've demonstrated seems fine and if you have the build process automated then that's even better.

If you can flag up any pages on the wiki that you'd like to copy or move to Github then I'd be happy to assist in adapting them.  I don't see any problem in cross-referencing from the wiki to Github either.

Does Google not index Github pages?  If not, then that is something that would need to be solved.  I'm sure most people find the documentation by Googling; I know I do.

Chris.

PS: It would be extremely helpful if you could flag "blatantly wrong" information on the wiki as you find it.  Someone else can correct it if you don't have time, but just knowing where something is wrong means that we can direct effort towards fixing it.  Thanks.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! Documentation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-docs...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to jooml...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-docs.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Chris Davenport
Joomla Production Leadership Team

[Andrew Eddie]

On Monday, 25 November 2013 09:58:38 UTC+10, Chris Davenport wrote:

I think the platform for developer documentation is a lot less important than just getting people to write it.

I agree, but I think the easier the platform is the better..

 

To that end I think the requirement that code contributions must be accompanied by at least basic documentation is important and personally I'd like to see that policy expanded to the CMS too.  (It's harder there because we would want user documentation and help screens as well as developer notes, but even so).

I'm happy to be involved in trying to set up a team that helps lift the developer documentation for both the CMS and the Framework if that helps. Let's take baby steps but I think we help raise the bar across the board.

 

I've always said that people should create the documentation in whatever form they feel comfortable (even handwritten on paper!) and if the maintainers prefer git then that's totally fine.  There is no perfect authoring tool (at least not an open source one).  Neither Github nor MediaWiki nor Joomla or any other platform I've looked at over the years really has what it takes to satisfy all of our requirements (or the range of personal preferences).  So we just have to make the best of what we have.

I agree, but we've been doing things for quite a number of years and I think some things have been more successful than others. Docbook, for example, was a good idea in theory but presented too high a barrier of entry. I think a Github model is a reasonable compromise and worth trying. In addition, the Github repo. can handle project management, in my opinion, far better than Mediawiki (via the issue tracker).

 

The approach you've demonstrated seems fine and if you have the build process automated then that's even better.

It's not automated yet, but it's "automation ready".

 

If you can flag up any pages on the wiki that you'd like to copy or move to Github then I'd be happy to assist in adapting them. 

I'd like to start with completely documenting the JForm package as a "trial run".

 

I don't see any problem in cross-referencing from the wiki to Github either.

I'd prefer to have one point of truth in the end if that's ok for now. I am certainly happy to cross-reference between Github and api.joomla.org for example.

 

Does Google not index Github pages?  If not, then that is something that would need to be solved.  I'm sure most people find the documentation by Googling; I know I do.

Yes, it does index them. I was talking about how to search the Github pages themselves. I'm sure there's a JS widget that can be included to "search this site".

 

PS: It would be extremely helpful if you could flag "blatantly wrong" information on the wiki as you find it.  Someone else can correct it if you don't have time, but just knowing where something is wrong means that we can direct effort towards fixing it.  Thanks.

Sure. Is there a special way to do that.

So, if there is tepid support for this, would it be appropriate to push my repo up to the Joomla org on Github, even if we keep it under the "highly experimental but could be fun" banner? I'm happy to drive all this so it doesn't cause anyone any additional work.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie 

[Andrew Eddie]

Just a thought. Could we potentially use http://developer.docs.joomla.org as a staging area?

Regards,

Andrew Eddie

[Webdongle]

On Sunday, 24 November 2013 23:58:38 UTC, Chris Davenport wrote:

I think the platform for developer documentation is a lot less important than just getting people to write it.

The platform for the developer documentation and getting people to write it are interlinked.  Part of the reason given was because developers may be more likely to write documentation if it was on github ... was it not ?

[Andrew Eddie]

On 25 November 2013 12:57, Webdongle <in...@weblinksonline.co.uk> wrote:
> The platform for the developer documentation and getting people to write it
> are interlinked. Part of the reason given was because developers may be
> more likely to write documentation if it was on github ... was it not ?

I think they are interlinked in so much as there are a few right ways
of doing it, but many, many bad ways of doing it. All I can say is
I've been fiddling with different ways of documenting for developers
for years now and this is a setup I'm finally happy with. I also want
to see how we can, let's say "partner" with some of the training sites
that hover around Joomla to help out (and I'm going to be the first
one to put my hand up to give content back to the project where it
belongs).

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Chris Davenport]

Drop a message on the Discussion page would be the quickest and simplest.

If you feel like learning a little syntax then you could add {{review}} to the page.

If you need to add some explanation then do both of the above or use {{page|The blah is foo-bar!}}.  

If the page is beyond redemption then {{delete}} might be appropriate.

Thanks,

Chris.

[Chris Davenport]

Don't see why not, but what do you mean by a "staging" area?

Chris.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! Documentation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-docs...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to jooml...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-docs.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Chris Davenport]

As I've always said, just try it.  If it works, great.  If it doesn't, try something else.

Chris.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! Documentation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-docs...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to jooml...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-docs.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Andrew Eddie]

On 25 November 2013 19:48, Chris Davenport <chris.d...@joomla.org> wrote:
> Don't see why not, but what do you mean by a "staging" area?

Just thinking out loud. Github pages lets you use a custom URL. Would
developer.docs.joomla.org be a reasonable place to deploy to?

I'll start getting a new repo set up then.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Chris Davenport]

Rolls off the tongue quite nicely, so I'd say "go for it".

Would Github be hosting the pages, or us?

Chris.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! Documentation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-docs...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to jooml...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-docs.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Tom Hutchison]

Hi Andrew,

Trying to answer everything in one email. Let me know if I missed
something.

From the links you provided, looks like you already have a good start.
As I said back in the spring regarding Framework docs, if GitHub would
bring in more contributions from the developers, I'm fine with the dev
docs living on GitHub.

If you need help scraping the current pages on docs.joomla.org let me
know. I don't know of any parsers off-hand which do MW to Markdown, I
suppose you could reverse engineer a Markdown to MW parser if you have
time. As you suggested, it might be better to put together a team to do
this.

Duplicate docs, might be a page being transcluded into another. Or
simply someone created more than one page for similar content(happens a
lot because no one checks to see if their subject exists or contributors
were writing specific cases instead of a generalised cases with a
broader base of content). Any incorrect docs, edit the page with a
{{page|This is foo because of foobar}} at the very top. At least it
will tag them for review.

Training sites, sounds like a good idea, just have to watch the content
contributed. Typically they commercialize their own docs with their own
logos and content writing. Docs policy currently is official docs
should not be an advertisement for contributors.

developer.docs.joomla.org, sounds good to me.

Take care
Tom Hutchison

[Edric Navarro (enav)]

In my personal opinion i see no problem on the use of mediaWiki for the documentation, the way this platform actually encourages people to easily collaborate in the review and enhancements of the documents.

One of the problems of the documents is that they do not explain in a real detailed and friendly way to newbs on how to actually collaborate in the documents, this is the same problem for the Joomla! source code I still don't know how to collaborate on submitting bugs or propose changes on the Joomla! source all is too confusing and i find 0 information on internet on how to do this in a official and proper way.

The docs as Andrew mentioned need a book like structure that flows from above to the bottom easy to understand, there is no such thing in the documents right now pages are spread all over the wiki, that is why some people collaborate in the same topic in two different pages.

I remember when i came to the docs for the first time i had no idea what a wiki was about, and tried to read the docs in a book like fashion, quickly realized that this was not an option and nothing on the docs where telling me how to properly read the docs in order to learn about Joomla! in some sort of coherent sequence. I'm just repeating what I posted long ago "Believe it or not we need to teach people how to read a wiki".

The docs have almost nothing friendly for newbs, lots of docs simply assume the reader is an average developer (even on some beginner pages), I had a really hard hard time learning Joomla! and if you know me from the IRC channel i cursed a lot there complaining about the docs in my early Joomla! days, then i stop complaining and put my hand on work learn what was wiki about and got totally amazed how flexible and versatile a wiki can be, after that i proceed to create several docs to teach people how to configure a workstation for PHP development, also a newb friendly intro about the different tools a new developer need to learn in order to get a semi automated workflow for Joomla! development, and some of those document where removed, others moved, others merged, I have told this before that happen: 

"setting up a localhost isn't Joomla's responsibility and me and Tom are slowly removing the instructions on this"

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/joomla-docs/edric/joomla-docs/dW6-cw9JfQQ/JZnsfii61VoJ

I also was incubating this newb friendly intro to Joomla! for actual beginners.

http://docs.joomla.org/User:Enav/Beginners

in order to give people an easy welcome to Joomla! and let them know where they can try it without having to install it, also telling them the basics of the Joomla! output, This is what i think beginners page should be about, the last time i check the beginners page had a ton of links and most of them where pages that were also at the developers page, that is wrong the content and term used for developers should not be applied for beginners.

One of the derived problem of the wiki is those outdated 1.5 docs and also those shared pages for several versions of Joomla!, there is some docs that have in the top "this doc is valid for 2.5, 3.0, 3.1" and so on, i really dislike to see those headers they are just pollution for my eyes.

My idea to propose a possible solution for the wiki madness is to create something like trees for example, lets say my first tree will looks like this:

• Joomla!
• 2.5
• intro
• installation
• article management
• tutorials
• ...

And when the new version 3.2 comes out with some new features the tree can evolve like this:

• Joomla!
• 3.2
• intro
• installation
• article management
• version control
• tutorials
• ...

So my idea is to clone/copy (or whatever the correct term is) the complete tree from 2.5 with all it pages and rename the main branch to 3.2, this way we can keep the old familiar book like structure of content and proceed to simply remove the pages that become not relevant or outdated, flag the pages that need an update and add the new pages such as "version control" and others that are needed for this new Joomla! version.

Old branches from EOL Joomla! versions such as 1.0 or 1.5 can be moved to a special branch called archived, like this:

• Joomla!
• 2.5
• book like scheme
• 3.2
• book like scheme
• Archived
• 1.0
• book like scheme
• 1.5
• book like scheme

This way i think is easier to delete stuff related to those  really old old Joomla! versions for example if you want to delete all about 1.0 because there is no need  to keep them around whatsoever, all the admin needs to do is to delete the 1.0 branch.

This new methodology to organize the wiki have the following problem, for example, a page called "how to login" exist in the 2.5 branch and the 3.2 branch and both have the exact same content because there was no need to update it, and someone reading the 2.5 version spotted a typo and fix it at the 2.5 version, it means the 3.2 version will need to get that typo fixed too, even so this problem is totally possible i believe most people will look for the most modern versions of Joomla! docs and will try to collaborate in the docs about the LTS version or the last STS version. Maybe there is a clean work around to solve this problem I believe this small problem with this proposed method can't be compared with the actual huge problem we have at the docs, where lots of people collaborate and want to collaborate but there isn't a map or plan to follow.

Finally i want to comment about another point from Andrew posts:

"The markdown format, I think, has been a huge success because it's an extremely lower barrier to entry and you don't have to learn too many rules."

In my opinion this is not entirely true, while is true markdown is a bit more simple I think there is not much that difference between the knowledge needed to write markdown and the knowledge needed to write wikipages markup, i mean you dont have to be a mediawiki expert to write good documents, the experts and complex rules sutff is the job of the admins. 

With this approach we are filtering away lots of potential collaborators like designers and non developers that wants to fix typos because not every body knows what github is about, what is a repo, how to create github repos what is the dynamic of github "staging, merging, pull, fetch", I think that this markdown/github method is not needed and will narrow the actual number of collaborators and bring more confusion because we have some stuff at joomla.or, other stuff at docs.joomla.org, and now more stuff at gthub.

You guys are the experts, you guys have the experience, all this years working on teams and collaborating at the Joomla! source, i dont feel that kind of experts yet (working on it), this was my reflection about this topic, I'm not against change i do rather like to see change if this means benefits at short or long term, I expressed all this point to discuss about them, evaluate the pros and cons and get in to a consensus.

If you guys are sure this will be a better move for developers, and will make things more friendly for new developers then i would like to see:

• Remove all kind of developer related content from the wiki, redirect users to the new repo/doc pages and leave there only how to's and tutorials for beginners and other non-developers related stuff.
  
• Examples, components tutorials, etc all of them should be on github so everybody see the latest version or select a branch tag to see older Joomla! related versions of the same examples and tutorials easy to review, download an install.
• Make a plan, something like a road map or scheme to follow, so everyone willing to help can have a bird-view of the entire documentation project and effectively decide where is the best place or topic to collaborate and spend time.
• If this new github thing will become true, then we also need to make sure to tell everyone using the official channels and a social thunderclap to minimize the future confusion about this new documentation project and the old documentation project.
• I have wonderful experience with the Bootstrap documentation, I do recommend to copy their actual patter because it have a really nice balance on the mixture of documents, theory and examples.
• On the first chapters, topics, etc of the new book like scheme, don't forget about the newbs, we need them and we should welcome and help them to become Joomla! experts too, i always remember this video and keep a link on it because those words from Mark Dexter are so true for any kind of opensource project http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rO4cHcPj570#t=267
  
• Consider the idea to place a message at the top of the wiki developers page to let people participate in this discussion and start informing about this new possibility. 

I do really love Joomla! an it community and always try to help one way or another, hope we all expose our ideas on how to solve this problem and convey in a practical solution.

Regards.

Edric N.

[Andrew Eddie]

> If you guys are sure this will be a better move for developers, and will
> make things more friendly for new developers then i would like to see:

Thanks for the suggestions.

> Remove all kind of developer related content from the wiki, redirect users
> to the new repo/doc pages and leave there only how to's and tutorials for
> beginners and other non-developers related stuff.

Yes, I think that would be the best approach.

> Examples, components tutorials, etc all of them should be on github so
> everybody see the latest version or select a branch tag to see older Joomla!
> related versions of the same examples and tutorials easy to review, download
> an install.

I'll have a think about the best way to do this.

> Make a plan, something like a road map or scheme to follow, so everyone
> willing to help can have a bird-view of the entire documentation project and
> effectively decide where is the best place or topic to collaborate and spend
> time.

Agree. Here's where some of the tools on Github come in handy:

https://github.com/joomla/joomla-developer-docs/issues?state=open

And, for example, here's what I want finished by the end of the year:

https://github.com/joomla/joomla-developer-docs/issues?milestone=2&state=open

> If this new github thing will become true, then we also need to make sure to
> tell everyone using the official channels and a social thunderclap to
> minimize the future confusion about this new documentation project and the
> old documentation project.

Yep, marketing has to be part of the plan.

> I have wonderful experience with the Bootstrap documentation, I do recommend
> to copy their actual patter because it have a really nice balance on the
> mixture of documents, theory and examples.

I will be sure to look at it, but we have a lot more documentation to
organise. My current thoughts are to model off the php.net
documentation to some degree.

> On the first chapters, topics, etc of the new book like scheme, don't forget
> about the newbs, we need them and we should welcome and help them to become
> Joomla! experts too,

Good thoughts.

> i always remember this video and keep a link on it
> because those words from Mark Dexter are so true for any kind of opensource
> project
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rO4cHcPj570#t=267
> Consider the idea to place a message at the top of the wiki developers page
> to let people participate in this discussion and start informing about this
> new possibility.

Very good idea!

Thanks again.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Herman Peeren]

Are there any plans for giving people editing rights for such github repo's? Or are all changes done via pull requests? The output looks easier, but is the input as easy as it is now?

For however unhandy and not ideal the current MW-pages are, when you see something small to improve, even very small things, it is very easy for everybody to edit them or add to it.

Still I have such a strange feeling about this all: documentation is content. Managing content is what we have Content Management Systems for. Joomla is a CMS and it is extensible, as you probably know, so we could make it to exactly fit what we want. Instead of that we rely on others. Also suboptimal solutions, but less easy to adopt to our needs. With Joomla's user management we can easily give rights to different levels of editors, maintainers etc. We even have some version control nowadays. Is using Github for Content Management for Joomla documentation a way to say "Joomla is not a good enough for the management of our own content"? And if Joomla would not be a good enough CMS at the moment to edit our own documentation, wouldn't the benefits of improving Joomla to make it apt for documentation be twofold: and we would get our custom made system, and we would improve Joomla itself.

- Herman

[Herman Peeren]

In the mean time there was some answer (about PR's) here: https://github.com/joomla/joomla-developer-docs/issues/1

[Andrew Eddie]

On 26 November 2013 16:15, Herman Peeren <herman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are there any plans for giving people editing rights for such github repo's?
> Or are all changes done via pull requests? The output looks easier, but is
> the input as easy as it is now?

Already replied.

> For however unhandy and not ideal the current MW-pages are, when you see
> something small to improve, even very small things, it is very easy for
> everybody to edit them or add to it.

Already replied.

> Still I have such a strange feeling about this all: documentation is
> content.

So is code at the most basic level :)

> Managing content is what we have Content Management Systems for.
> Joomla is a CMS and it is extensible, as you probably know, so we could make
> it to exactly fit what we want. Instead of that we rely on others.

I'm more than happy for you to look at a CMS solution and fill in the
gaps to review incoming contributions, but it's not what I want to do.

> Also
> suboptimal solutions, but less easy to adopt to our needs. With Joomla's
> user management we can easily give rights to different levels of editors,
> maintainers etc. We even have some version control nowadays. Is using Github
> for Content Management for Joomla documentation a way to say "Joomla is not
> a good enough for the management of our own content"? And if Joomla would
> not be a good enough CMS at the moment to edit our own documentation,
> wouldn't the benefits of improving Joomla to make it apt for documentation
> be twofold: and we would get our custom made system, and we would improve
> Joomla itself.

The short answer is that Joomla is a web site management tool and the
default download is not good enough. Yes, we have access control and
version history, but we are lacking workflow (review, red-line,
curation, etc).

The bottom line is if you want to try another system, that's fine but
you are going to have to do the work of organising your own team for
it (there are other people interested in this, get together with
them). If it's better than this one, great, I'll shut this one down.
However, if you think you can work with my system, how many hours a
week or month can you give me to help?

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Herman Peeren]

On Tuesday, 26 November 2013 07:27:50 UTC+1, Andrew Eddie wrote:

The short answer is that Joomla is a web site management tool and the
default download is not good enough. Yes, we have access control and
version history, but we are lacking workflow (review, red-line,
curation, etc).

 A good motivation that I'm on the right track at the moment, building a better system. I'll focus on that and maybe others can use it too when I make it available.

[Andrew Eddie]

Ok, progress so far.

The repo has a new home:

https://github.com/joomla/joomla-developer-docs

The web site has a new home:

http://developer.docs.joomla.org/

The backlog of tasks is being managed here:

https://github.com/joomla/joomla-developer-docs/issues?state=open

The roadmap is being managed with milestones as can be seen here:

https://github.com/joomla/joomla-developer-docs/issues/milestones

The repo wiki is being used to house the contributor instructions of the site:

https://github.com/joomla/joomla-developer-docs/wiki

My main concern before I start asking people for favours is that it
all "works" well. Someone that's new should very quickly be able to
work out what to do or at the very least know how to ask for help. An
experienced developer should just be able to jump into contribution
and be very familiar with the platform. Maybe use the README.md and
CONTRIBUTING.md files more effectively?

Any other comments so far?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Andrew Eddie]

Edit button has been added to each page now.

https://github.com/joomla/joomla-developer-docs

(as for how easy it is, if took me about 60 seconds to make this pull
request https://github.com/lukaszkujawa/php-pecl-solr/pull/1, all via
the Github web interface)

If there are no objections, I'll get an announce ready for
developer.joomla.org news and blast the general list.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Tom]

> On Nov 26, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Andrew Eddie <mamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Edit button has been added to each page now.

Cool

>
> https://github.com/joomla/joomla-developer-docs
>
> (as for how easy it is, if took me about 60 seconds to make this pull
> request https://github.com/lukaszkujawa/php-pecl-solr/pull/1, all via
> the Github web interface)
>
> If there are no objections, I'll get an announce ready for
> developer.joomla.org news and blast the general list.

Sure, put one together and I can ask Michael or David to post it. I don't have access to developer.

Take care
Tom