← Back to team overview

ubuntu-manual team mailing list archive

Re: Gummi


In the past, the team gave authors a choice between working with
the .tex files, or submitting their text in Google Docs format. That was
either for the Precise or both the Precise and Quantal editions, but
they didn't do it in the Raring edition. It was too much work for the
editors to go through and create the LaTeX for anything that needed it
(from the Google Docs files).

I don't remember too many issues from Authors or Editors in working with
the LaTeX files this time around (but I may have missed them).

Also Gummi doesn't look like it's very active. The last release was in
October, 2012, and the last revision in the files was in March, 2013. If
you look at the roadmap, everything is late.  I agree it looks like a
lot of work to get it going for the manual (especially since we'd have
to fix the open issues also).

Of course, letting the developer know that we might be interested in
using his program might be the kick in the pants that he needs to fix
the open issues.  As always, this is just my. .02 worth.

Have a great weekend.:)

On Sat, 2013-06-15 at 11:35 -0700, Jonathan Marsden wrote: 
> On 06/15/2013 11:27 AM, Yorvyk wrote:
> > I notice that in the dim and distant past there was a blueprint item
> > [1] to see if gummi could be made to work with UMP. I take it this
> > went no where. If this is the case, are there any programmers who'd
> > like to prod it to see if it could be made to work.
> That seems like a lot of work, compared to just having people use any
> decent text editor that they are already familiar with.  Do we have
> significant numbers of authors and editors who are being scared away by
> the need to directly work with LaTeX source?
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual
> Post to     : ubuntu-manual@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Follow ups