On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 11:27 -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 07:20 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > > Even when we do, we will still release documents when they are ready, so > > it's no shame if we do a Fedora Core X FAQ even on a rolling-update > > basis. > > > > No shame at all, in fact almost a necessary condition since you (by > definition) can't get a lot of the FAQ's until the product is widely > available. My comment referred to the previous suggestion to "freeze" a > FAQ for that version, and freezing is the part that doesn't sound like > such a good idea. Ah, yes. Perhaps "take a snapshot" would be a better term. :) Thinking about it further, I realize that where fedorafaq.org can and will maintain an FAQ indefinitely, we may not want to do that. Also, rolling FAQ changes over could be a PITA as the canonical at fedorafaq.org gains more entries and refinements. Otherwise, we're forking and maintaining ourselves. Ouch. Gavin, do you want to contact Max directly? We can let him know that a) we like what they are doing, b) want to support it somehow, but c) can't directly link to him. Since they are using XHTML, it _might_ be easy for us to do rolling updates derived from his source. Let's find out first if that helps. Max or one of his team may also be interested in doing the derivative themselves, essentially publishing in two locations with certain content not in the Fedora version. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 Red Hat SELinux Guide http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
