1 |
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:58:56 +0100 |
2 |
AllenJB <gentoo-lists@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
> I have no intention of "shitting all over" anybodys work. My apologies |
4 |
> if that was the interpretation. I'm simply escalating an issue I have |
5 |
> raised before to somewhere I think it'll get more attention. |
6 |
|
7 |
I realize (now) it wasn't your intention. But that was how I took it. Just sayin'. |
8 |
|
9 |
> Maybe you're not totally dead, but my criteria for activity has been the |
10 |
> multiple bugs I've been sitting on and the number of times I'm having to |
11 |
> tell new users "the handbook is wrong, ignore it and follow my |
12 |
> instructions in this case" or "oh dear! You seem to have installed a |
13 |
> version of Portage so ancient that 99% of our package tree can't be |
14 |
> installed" (or words to that effect) - mostly to do with the lack of |
15 |
> up-to-date handbooks, which as per my original post is now becoming a |
16 |
> dire situation, in my opinion. |
17 |
|
18 |
It is pretty bad -- it's news to me that EAPI2 is causing installation issues. That's on top of the interesting outdated packages and blockers seen when updating from something as old as 2008. |
19 |
|
20 |
Problem is that there is no real "quick fix" for the handbooks, and there never was, even when the autobuilds were first introduced. It's not just a matter of changing version numbers. It's also the supporting text. It's also the variable infrastructure in our other handbooks that build the displayed text using a number of conditionals. Every file we have needs to be overhauled to match what should be a simple version change, because the autobuilds are very different. |
21 |
|
22 |
Give me two or three straight days that I devote 12 hours of work to the docs per day, and three GDP members who can work some or all of that time, and I can get the handbooks done in a weekend. It's doable, it just needs a large block of time, and more people besides me doing all the work. |
23 |
|
24 |
I've been doing solo handbook overhauls for the last several releases. It's not fun anymore. This is even more wide-reaching than that, since it involves core handbook design decisions that (I think) *require* getting my fellow team members and lead to review and consider. |
25 |
|
26 |
> If the rest of the team is dead, why not escalate the issue to, say the |
27 |
> -dev list. At least from what you've said in your most recent post you |
28 |
> seem to think _something_ does need to be done about the current situation. |
29 |
|
30 |
This is an idea, but I don't know that it would accomplish much. I've chimed in on major package changes on the -dev list with a request for developers to talk with the GDP regarding related doc updates, but most of those kinds of requests go unanswered, or are answered very slowly. |
31 |
|
32 |
Usually I jump on IRC as it's more likely that I'll enlist help from my fellow developers there, in real time: two very recent examples are the Xfce and X11 teams helping me out with my questions regarding the guides for 'em, and some stuff on bugzilla. |
33 |
|
34 |
Something does need to be done about the number of active docs developers, and the number of non-GDP members contributing patches that I just need to commit with minimal review, thus acting as a commit proxy. But I can't *force* people to help out with the documentation -- that includes users and developers. Nor can I force our developers to have free time right when *I* need some answers WRT a doc. |