On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 10:21 +0100, Gavin Henry wrote: > <quote who="Karsten Wade"> > > I've been wondering about this for a while, so when Stuart brought up > > the age of the Keeping Up to Date tutorial: > > > > http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/updates/ > > > > today on #fedora-docs, I figured it was time to open this discussion. > > I'm hoping you are interested in taking over some documentation. > > > > We have a few documents that are FC2 specific and are going to be > > orphaned when FC2 moves over to the Legacy Project. The Docs Project > > (FDP) follows the Fedora Core release and maintenance schedule, meaning > > when a version of Core goes to the Legacy Project, the docs should go > > with it. I'll list what those docs are (just a few), bring up some > > ideas about what can be done with them, and finish with a few useful > > URLs. > > > > ## The Docs: > > > > We'll have a list that is a bit longer for FC3 when that time comes. > > > > Keeping Up to Date (FC2) > > http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/updates/ > > We're likely to update this for FC4, if a writer pops up wanting it. I mentioned before that I really like Stuart's tutorial so far, and having spoken up, I'd be willing to take over editorial duties for it, if there are no objections. > > Fedora Jargon Buster > > > > http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/jargon-buster/ > > > > This was written originally under FC1. It may not be out of date, > > but it hasn't been updated in six months. > > Have you asked the author, mainly Dave? > > > > > Package List for Fedora Core 2 > > http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/package-list/fc2/ > > > > I don't know anything about this or its value. > > Do people really want to read this doc or just browse the download folder? Rahul made a good point about this being available elsewhere. There's also using "yum list" or "up2date --showall | grep <reponame>" to provide this function, I believe. [...snip...] > > ## What to Do? > > > > I'm just throwing out a few ideas, which may even be somewhat exclusive > > of each other. > > > > 1. Legacy Docs could be a sub-project of the Docs Project. > > > > There is no rule that says what is in our purview. I keep the nose of > > the project turned in the direction Fedora Core is going, but the rest > > of the head can be doing other things at the same time. > > I think they should be maintained if anything is backported, but otherwise > just freeze them, unless some bugzilla entries come up. I like this idea best. Karsten makes the observation that any maintenance will likely be trivial, therefore not a big drag on our resources -- in fact, much less of a drag, I would think, than teaching FLP members the docs toolset. > > Currently, we don't have enough writers to work on new documents that > > are needed for FC. I don't know of anyone interested in the Legacy > > docs. > > Neither do I. > > > IMO, maintenance of a set of Legacy docs is likely to be easier than a > > doc that tracks something with an active update schedule in FC. I had > > this with the SELinux FAQ. It was very active during the early parts of > > the release, and tapered off as rawhide become more of the next version. > > > > This means that one or two people could maintain quite a large set of > > docs. This could be great experience for someone interested in > > technical writing, open source projects, or need to support a legacy > > app. > > > > By integrating the efforts, current docs could be written with Legacy > > needs in mind. Whatever those turn out to be. > > Yes, they can be a basis to work on and update them, rather than starting > from scratch. Certainly there would be an obsolescence process to work up -- i.e. freezing entities, inserting a caveat in the front matter, etc. We can work on this as time allows. > > 2. Legacy Project can form the Legacy Docs as a sub-project. > > > > This is more of a throw over the wall scheme. I'd recommend that the > > FDP remain available to help train on the tools. > > > > Since the Legacy Project is going to need to staff the a documentation > > effort with writers, you might as well keep them close to the rest of > > the project. > > Agreed. The FLP is having enough trouble simply attracting enough community involvement to keep updates rolling out on a timely basis -- and that is *not* meant as a slam to anyone involved there. They are doing good work, but the project leads have made this observation themselves continually in their list traffic. I think dumping (throwing?) docs work on them is not going to help their cause, and we are already better equipped to handle a small amount of upkeep work, which is much less demanding than writing from scratch. Q.v. above. > > 3. Legacy Project could cherry-pick from the versioned docs. The FDP > > would likely keep the outdated docs available, but mark them clearly as > > not current. The FDP will help get Legacy writers up to speed, mainly > > through our standard docs and procedures, then mailing list support > > where needed. See comments to #1 and #2 above. I think the first option is best. [...snip...] > > Thanks - Karsten > > No, thank you. No no no, thank YOU. :-D (food fight ensues) -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
