| 1 |
Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Oh god help. This also points to another reason why this is not such a |
| 4 |
> good idea. Writing guideXML is a lot more work than writing an e-mail |
| 5 |
> format file (ciaran's proposed format for those who didn't recognize it). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Also having double files containing the same information is broken by |
| 8 |
> design. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
OK so there is two options : |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
1- every "news" requires a GuideXML/RST/whatever errata at a central web |
| 13 |
location |
| 14 |
Pros: |
| 15 |
- non-portage user can easily browse errata |
| 16 |
- consistency in documentation |
| 17 |
Cons: |
| 18 |
- work overhead for errata-writing dev |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
2- every "news" requires just a short text-based item, extra doc is optional |
| 21 |
Pros: |
| 22 |
- flexibility: short news don't require writing extra doc |
| 23 |
- external doc reuse: the documentation referenced in the news item can |
| 24 |
be some upstream upgrade doc when sufficient |
| 25 |
Cons: |
| 26 |
- lack of consistency and difficulty for non-portage users to browse |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
We can have the best of both worlds if we find a way to reduce the work |
| 29 |
overhead to 0 (using some kind of news2errataXml translator ?). If we |
| 30 |
can't, I tend to favor the second solution... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Koon |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives