| 1 |
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> This is not the case and we have been discussing this over and over. |
| 3 |
> The wiki is not there to replace official docs. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
What are the main problems with this - especially if a "sighted pages" |
| 6 |
approach is taken? I would think the main issue with a wiki would be |
| 7 |
officialness and the proposed approach could potentially address that. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Obviously an issue with moving to a wiki would be the mass of |
| 10 |
documentation already out there, but the logical approach would be to |
| 11 |
move it over time, and perhaps cite the existing docs in the wiki |
| 12 |
where possible. Then if documentation gets stale it could be |
| 13 |
re-written and "approved." |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Just because the wiki isn't CURRENTLY there to replace official docs |
| 16 |
doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about whether it one day could. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Rich |
Archives