On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Max Hetrick wrote: > R P Herrold wrote: > >> if you are referring to me, your projection into what I wrote >> has mislead you. > Well, I was kind of referring to what you said here: > > >> 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). > Unless I misinterpreted, you're basically saying that to a writer they > need to go work at the project they are documenting, not CentOS no, I agree that you have me right that I think content needs to first go at the proper trailhead in all cases The primary source has to be considered, and should be more authoritative than any secondary source, except for specfic case local practice exeptions 'If you always live with those who are lame, you will yourself learn to limp' Reinventing yet another off round wheel is a losing game > Please, by all means, explain if that is not what you meant. That's what > I took it as. I consciously changed the Subject line to: Building yet another an off round wheel I consciously noted my comments as: My $0.02 I consciously quoted the setup: > if there is a problem of lack of clarity, the answer is NOT > to write yet more non-authoritative doco first I consciously quoted the 'CentOS specific' qualifier: > 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. -- your assertion of 'all' clearly mischaracterizes (or more charitably: misinterpreted) by quoting me out of context as that same piece makes it quite clear there are proper CentOS wiki uses in my view as well. It is perfectly reasonable that I argue to strive to make fewer forks and less content in the CentOS wiki under that rubric, as success means the future's primary source doco is better for _all_ FOSS approaches -- Russ herrold
