On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 13:01, redwire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > My $0.02: CVS is still locked because we don't yet have a workable > > protocol for prioritizing, assigning, accepting, editing, QA/QC'ing, and > > automatically Web-fielding documents. I think (hope?) Red Hat people are > > working on the infrastructure part of that. We are here to talk about > > those protocols, and not to just grow a plethora of third-party > > repositories for docs. > > > > I understand that we maybe waiting on RH, but waiting on something that > 'may' happen when 'someone' gets to it is like being the bridesmaid and > never the bride. [also, Sounds like Redmond, WA] See my erratum for more. I misstated at first, but Karsten subsequently said it better anyway. > I'm not trying to be rude or insulting, but IF a working documentation > structure isn't able to be Resolved\Approved by those people that are > spending their own free time on it, then 'Houston, we have a problem'. I think we're actually in agreement here. I'm just trying to state the case that until we have a process, having CVS write access anywhere is pointless. We should set the course before we press on the gas pedal. [...snip...] > Lastly, I understand that I am new to the group. I understand that I don't > post alot and am still trying to master DocBook syntax and d'l the > examples, but I will mention that I have 10+ yrs of computer programming & > training experience. > I know from experience that if you don't provide a basis for knowledge for > others to build on then the product, no matter how good, is destine to > fall by the wayside. No argument here. As an aside, I've been a teacher for almost that long in a number of technical fields, although I'm not a programmer by trade, which is why I agree that we do need to provide the knowledge, but we need to make sure we're not taking a shotgun approach. Let's devote this time to figuring out the protocol, then. Thread to start shortly, and thanks for your consideration. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE
