On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 22/03/16 10:21, François Cami wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Manuel Wolfshant >> <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 03/22/2016 09:30 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I was having a look at that page, and was wondering what we can do for >>>> point #3 (Manuals and other documentation) >>>> As we have no real content for CentOS 6 and 7 , my idea was just to >>>> explain in one line that (while technically not the CentOS >>>> documentation) , almost all the points coming from uptream documentation >>>> ( - except for subscription manager - ) can be applied to CentOS and so >>>> having link from that section to >>>> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/ >>>> >>>> Ideas, thoughts, comments ? >>>> >>> +1 for that. it's long overdue. >> >> -1 from me, because access.redhat.com documentation contains support >> statements which are irrelevant to the CentOS project. I'd very much >> like to avoid generating (more) confusion in potential users. > > Yes, but I was mentioning documentation about how to > deploy/configure/maintain it, but you have a point : so the note would > need to mention that everything regarding support channels and > subscriptions should be considered "not applicable" to CentOS > It's true that it can confuse potential users, but not having > documentation at all doesn't help, and from what I see in #centos or > forums, people are already pointed to the only existing doc, aka the > upstream ones My concern is not with users technically savvy enough to connect to Freenode channels, because these sort-of know the difference between community projects and enterprise, supported products. With that said, provided we find a way to mention how to mention that unambiguously, I'm ok with it. François _______________________________________________ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@xxxxxxxxxx https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
