On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:20:37PM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis <grbzks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:33:49PM -0500, Dusty Phillips wrote: > >> 2009/2/6 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> > Hey guys, > >> > I wanted to make you aware of the following: > >> > http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13140 > >> > > >> > The "Official Installation Guide" is severely outdated (the wiki page > >> > still mentions "i686 optimized"). > >> > >> As one of the two people who was once on Arch's only attempt at an > >> official documentation team, and as one of several people who > >> contributed many of the first articles to the wiki, I have this to say > >> on the topic: > >> > >> Drop the official install guide. > >> > >> We know our wiki is well-maintained and well organized, and it seems > >> to do that by itself without much developer interference. Go wiki! > >> Originally, when we first set the wiki up Dennis, Judd, and I felt > >> that the official install guide should be more... well... official. > >> But its out of date, its always out of date, and there are wiki texts > >> that are not out of date. Now, seeing how our wiki experiment has > >> exceeded our hopes and expectations, I'd say that the install guide > >> (drop the 'official') should be community maintained as are all our > >> wiki pages. It will improve. When its time for a release, "somebody > >> official" should read through it, ensure its accurate, convert it to > >> plaintext and put it on the iso. > >> > >> Dusty > > > > I agree with the above for the most part. The only "problems" with the > > Beginners Guide, which is the only up to date and worth of being > > included anywhere guide is that its too "wikified". eg. references > > "go here" with a link to another wiki page. It would definately take > > less time to convert it into something less dependant on the wiki than > > refactoring the official guide. > > Also theres references to eg. like Loui said yaourt which should > > probably go (?) > > Also the official guide is linked from all over the place. archlinux.org > > wiki.archlinux.org + its part of the iso. Should those change to link > > the beginners guide? Should the Beginners Guide change its name to the > > Arch Linux Handbook for example? > > FTR I had always been in favour of maintaining 1 guide from the beginning. > > I'm for changing the name to "Arch Linux Handbook" and maintaining one > guide. It seems simpler. But we should take care to include references > to unofficial tools and things somewhere else - i.e. the "install > yaourt" stuff Im sure Misfit138 will be happy, as he meant to that himself. :) -- Greg what to do and what not to do in public :o) http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php
