Gentoo Archives: gentoo-doc

From: Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>
To: gentoo-doc@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-doc] [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:16:41
Message-Id: 20050914165500.GA8513@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-doc] [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents by "Jan Kundrát"
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 10:26:37PM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> > Better would be to /do/ have multiple bugreports on it :) > > Including third-party articles?
Why not? If the reports are valid and can be fixed with the historical meaning in tact (i.e. the bugreport would also be valid at the time the article was originally written), we should do so. If the article is outdated but not wrong, we can have the bugreport marked as LATER. If the article is outdated and wrong, we can have the bugreport marked as LATER and hope that someone would write a new article that "includes" the fixes in the before mentioned bug reports. Even if no-one ever writes a follow-up on the article, we would still have knowledge about the issues with the current article and, if needed, take appropriate measures. Wkr, Sven Vermeulen -- Gentoo Foundation Trustee | http://foundation.gentoo.org Gentoo Documentation Project Lead | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp Gentoo Council Member The Gentoo Project <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-doc] [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents "Jan Kundrát" <jkt@g.o>