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. |