On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Christoph Maser wrote: > So we should make a proper nagios documentation on the > centos-wiki because the official nagios docs suck? I've said it before, and thought I was a voice crying alone in the wilderness -- welcome, Christoph ;) > herrold prior: > WHY are we building maintenance load? What is wrong with the > virtualization documentation we already ship? I know I file > bugs upstream on xen and libvirt, but no one participating > on this thread here has so far as I can see; if there is a > problem of lack of clarity, the answer is NOT to write yet > more non-authoritative doco first http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2009-April/002623.html We were down this same path as to virtualization months ago, and by coincidence my script wrapping virt-install was mentioned in an IRC channel just yesterday later: > herrold prior: > I remain unconvinced that replicating documentation, and > adding places for entropy to rot in a wiki is a win. I'd > upstream the change, instead, as there is NO CentOS specific > aspect here. http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2009-April/002799.html > herrold prior: > I have no such goal to court public opinion, and I think > neither does the core value of the project; that people > feel a need to use CentOS as a locus to contribute is a > matter beyond the core scope mandate of a strict rebuild > project > The CentOS core mandate, to me, is to elide trademarks from > an upstream FOSS sources rebuild; solving the issue of the > non-free updater solution upstream; and preserving > (lovingly) all bugs to match upstream. > I see NO shame in being called knock-off _out of_ a > commercial product, any more than Red Hat should feel shame > in stabilising the enormous effort of the free software > community that preceded them (and that continues independent > of, or in conjunction with them) _into_ a commercial > product. This is the point of FOSS [ESR, and the 'chasing > the tail-lights' example]. http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2009-April/002807.html New editorial matter resumes: If people want to write content, they NEED TO GO TO FEDORA, or the upstream, and get patches accepted, so the changes flow back down in our future. Go work at the trailhead, not in an upstream project's past (here Nagios). We at CentOS are an enterprise rebuild as the core product. Nothing more. That is OUR trailhead Tasks in doco, sub-projects, and the like that take away from building, testing and pushing the SRPMs into binary RPMs at point update time; [to permit us to end the 'updates blackout' window and resume] the security updates; and the (rare) difficult stablization of new ISOs at major release when anaconda has traditionally made major delta, should properly come later, if at all Support for CentOS specific variations is fair game. But most of the wiki and the forums as I scan it simply repeat existing content with GENERAL usage information; In part that why I am so ready to be scornful of IRC 'spoonfeeders', and to try to keep #centos an on topic teaching channel, rather than a 'drop in answer takeaway' store. Building yet more 'stuff' down paths with no future and in the past only provides food for entropy to eat away at; it imposes load to no meaningful gain. My $0.02 -- Russ herrold
