Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-doc
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-doc: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-doc@g.o
From: Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 18:57:21 +0200
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:12:08PM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> I'm not familiar with inner workings of gorg/axkit and I don't know
> anything about speed issues or expensiveness of XML transformations, sorry.

Now that's an interesting subject for documents: performance analysis on
Gentoo :) Would actually constitute an entire category of documents ! =)

> > If we mark some files as unmaintained, we're also telling our users that
> > non-marked files *are* maintained.
> 
> Good point, but IMHO we are now telling that *everything* is maintained
> ("file is on gentoo.org -> it's official").

We are now telling that the documents on the site are up for improvements.
Think about what we do with bugreports about /proj/en/* documents - we tell
them the GDP can't fix those and redirect them to the appropriate team.

What would you do with a bugreport about a totally different site? Right,
giggle a bit, tell the world about the stupid bug report and mark it as
wontfix/cantfix.

Now what would you do with a bugreport about a document that /is/ in
/doc/en? You'll either try to fix the document, or keep the bugreport until
someone else can fix it. What's wrong with this? In the worst case, the
bugreports for a particular guide are piling up with the net end result that
we remove the document from CVS (well, Attic it or move it somewhere else).

If we would mark documents as "outdated"/"unmaintained" and you'll get a
bugreport about those, what would you do differently from bugreports on
documents that are up-to-date/maintained? I would be quite surprised if you
handled those bugs differently.

> That's why I included "[RFC]" in the subject. I don't know if it is
> possible and worth the effort, I'm just asking.

I like it. Gives some action on the mailinglist again. I almost thought I
would lose my English skills if it went on like this (no IRC, no English
phone calls, hardly any mailinglist traffic - except on stupid or off-topic
... err ... topics :)

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 >>>
Attachment:
pgpQ1wacUNYZr.pgp (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents
-- Jan Kundrát
References:
[RFC] Marking unmaintained documents
-- Jan Kundrát
Re: [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents
-- Xavier Neys
Re: [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents
-- Jan Kundrát
Re: [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents
-- Xavier Neys
Re: [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents
-- Jan Kundrát
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-doc: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents
Next by thread:
Re: [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents
Previous by date:
Re: Why do we run all commands as root in docs?
Next by date:
Re: [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-doc mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.