1 |
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:56:26PM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: |
2 |
> Currently we have quite a lot of "unsupported"/"invalid"/"unmaintained" |
3 |
> documents for one of these reasons: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> a) Third party article |
6 |
|
7 |
We "can" fix those, but you don't see any news site "fix" their news items |
8 |
after a year... they are kept online as a reference. You might want to write |
9 |
a new article about the same subject but more accurate - having the old |
10 |
article at your disposal can be very interesting. |
11 |
|
12 |
> b) Older Handbook |
13 |
|
14 |
Although I can see why you want the chapters of the older handbooks "marked" |
15 |
as out-dated, some people still use the older handbooks, especially if they |
16 |
have older release media and want a networkless installation. |
17 |
|
18 |
But then again, that's not the point :) Personally, I don't think we need |
19 |
anything red on those handbooks - I would refer to the people's common sense |
20 |
when they are reading the 2004.3 handbook :) |
21 |
|
22 |
> c) Translation in language which is not officially supported |
23 |
|
24 |
We don't link that language; the documents are made available if you know |
25 |
the URI (which is of course not difficult to grasp). Perhaps we can disable |
26 |
viewing it entirely unless some variable is set (?override=1) but I don't |
27 |
think we should. |
28 |
|
29 |
Each document on our web site is "official" in the sense that either we or a |
30 |
different Gentoo project is in charge of it. For our documents, this means |
31 |
that users can post bugreports on the document if they want or even send us |
32 |
fixes. |
33 |
|
34 |
With this in mind, having the outdated documents online keeps the bug report |
35 |
flow coming in - which is a good thing. It has happened in the past that a |
36 |
guide that was once unmaintained and outdated got updated and is now |
37 |
accurate and a pleasure to read. |
38 |
|
39 |
Yes, I know you want something to tell the users "Beware, this document |
40 |
might contain wrong information" but then again, how would you know the |
41 |
document gives wrong directives to the user? An old hardware-related guide |
42 |
might still be perfectly valid - just not updated. Or a very recent guide |
43 |
can contain erroneous commands while it is still actively maintained. |
44 |
|
45 |
Imo, as long as there is no AI that can inform us about the malicious |
46 |
content of a document, we can't easily mark such documents as "outdated" or |
47 |
"erroneous". I have made a small attempt by allowing us to mark a specific |
48 |
bug as a showstopper in metadoc - as a result, the document will be unlinked |
49 |
from the index page. This can be extended by adding-in a <warn> on top of |
50 |
the document, but you'll have to fight Xavier with this as this results in |
51 |
another few queries of metadoc and such and makes the XSL again more |
52 |
obscure. |
53 |
|
54 |
Wkr, |
55 |
Sven Vermeulen |
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
-- |
61 |
Gentoo Foundation Trustee | http://foundation.gentoo.org |
62 |
Gentoo Documentation Project Lead | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp |
63 |
Gentoo Council Member |
64 |
|
65 |
The Gentoo Project <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>> |