Gentoo Archives: gentoo-doc

From: Chema Alonso <nimiux@g.o>
To: gentoo-doc@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-doc] Decommissioning of the Documentation project?
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:46:07
Message-Id: 20160616094605.GA32757@woodpecker.gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-doc] Decommissioning of the Documentation project? by Matthew Marchese
1 On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 06:01:15PM -0700, Matthew Marchese wrote:
2 > On 06/14/2016 09:32 AM, Nathan Zachary wrote:
3 >
4 > > On 14/06/16 11:31, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
5 > >> Hi all,
6 > >>
7 > >> With the Gentoo Wiki being the sole handler of all end user (and often also
8 > >> development, although the Devmanual is a separate aspect but not under
9 > >> Documentation project anyway) we had a small talk on #gentoo-doc if there
10 > >> was still a need to have the documentation project as an active project.
11 > >>
12 > >> Because, you know, we're not active (beyond the wiki, which is doing great
13 > >> btw).
14 > >>
15 > >> I've been looking at what the project would still mean for Gentoo right now,
16 > >> and if that would be sufficient to keep it alive. We
17 > >> - have some documentation development guidelines as part of the
18 > >> Project:Documentation umbrella (but which can be moved if needed)
19 > >> - the translation subproject underneath (but again only with a guideline for
20 > >> translations)
21 > >>
22 > >> And that's basically not much, and a good reflection of how things evolved
23 > >> in the past few years. Just keeping it in limbo doesn't serve us well. It's
24 > >> a somewhat empty project, with its deliverables being implemented elsewhere.
25 > >> So it's definitely not a failure, on the contrary. It's finished.
26 > >>
27 > >> So personally, I wouldn't mind that we move whatever is still needed to the
28 > >> right location (Project:Wiki most likely) and clean up (or archive if
29 > >> needed) the rest.
30 > >>
31 > >> But I'm also all ears for people who have some neat and innovative ideas to
32 > >> do through the documentation project! So, what's your take on this?
33 > >>
34 > >> Wkr,
35 > >> Sven Vermeulen
36 > >>
37 > > I would tend to agree. Anything that needs to be moved to the wiki can
38 > > be, but otherwise, having a separate repository for documentation seems
39 > > dated.
40 > >
41 > > Cheers,
42 > > Nathan Zachary
43 > >
44 > Although I have not been part of the docs project long (only just over a
45 > year) I do not see a need for two separate projects. As SwifT and I
46 > discussed on the IRC in the channel, I think the docs project really has
47 > no reason to be separate from the wiki. Since the wiki is the main
48 > hosting platform for hosting documentation all doc development is
49 > completed through that vessel.
50 >
51 > Not to mention I haven't see any 'new' documentation written by anyone
52 > on the docs team since I joined. No offense. :P
53 >
54 > Kind regards,
55 > Blast the maffer
56 >
57
58 My contributions are done exclusively through the wiki so it's ok for me to
59 keep all documentation there.
60
61 Regards.