O/H Karsten Wade έγραψε: > On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 17:17 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> I like the idea of more contributions to the glossary. It's a worthy >> goal. I just wish that, at the same time as we get more contributions, >> we were also encouraging people to submit the changes in a more >> automatically trackable way. That way is Bugzilla. (I'm reminded that >> random people can't contribute to our wiki -- they have to go through a >> series of steps (you've done them, of course) including the CLA.) >> >> Wiki notifications are a fine way for anyone currently using the wiki to >> pick up "what needs to be done." But what about John Newuser, who just >> joined? He starts at square one, and even if he has CVS and DocBook >> skills, and is well-informed enough to turn on all his notifications >> immediately, he will have no idea what entries need to be moved. He >> can't get backdated notifications. >> >> Bugzilla is a queue of problems that any motivated contributor can >> consult for a "to-do" list. John Newuser can look at the list, pick a >> problem, and get down to business. Bug and task tracking tools are the >> ideal way to capture this work, and produce other useful information >> like how long it's taking to get them closed or handled. The wiki >> satisfies none of those needs, unfortunately. >> >> Again, I'm not blasting use of the wiki -- but it's very clear to me >> that it's not a sustainable and valuable tool in the way that SCM and >> Bugzilla clearly are. It's merely good for collecting raw material >> quickly. > > I've been watching release notes in particular be produced for the last > three+ years, internally for RHEL, then externally in Fedora. To be > honest, bugzilla was always a bit of a barrier that even seasoned > developers wouldn't overcome unless the error was egregious or the new > content valuable. I'd see poor Ed begging for input time after time, > and only a dozen developers actually put anything in the bug report. > > This is in stark contrast to what we've experienced with the Wiki. At > least two to three times the number of developers have helped with > content and reviews, and it's easier for people to dig their hands in > and get stuff done. > > What I'm thinking is that bugzilla can work for all levels, but there is > a granularity level below which input decreases. For example, more > reports are filed for technical errors, while translation and > grammar/spelling errors get few bug reports. Templates try to fix this, but they fail as you already point out. Maybe we could have (through Plone) some simple webpage front-ends for bug reports, which use XML-RPC to communicate with bugzilla? For example, one webpage titled "Leave a comment" could open special ready-made bug reports for comments on the Docs -- even anonymously (using a special bugzilla user). Of course this will apply only bug reports on a spacial component (eg "comment-rfe"). Of course this might overwhelm us with bug reports that need closing and stuff. But there are 100 times more "I just want to leave a comment guys" than "I am willing/able to create a Fedora account or complete a template bugzilla report". > [...] > Bottom line is this: if the only way to get a change in e.g. Fedora > Glossary is to file a bug report, we will receive 1/10th to 1/100th the > number of fixes and entries than if we put it in the Wiki for editing. > We have to balance the challenges of Wiki -> XML with the increased > contributions. +1. Or jump quickly to a new technology, like the ticketing the Infrastructure folks did. Which isn't likely to happen because of maintenance reasons. -d -- Dimitris Glezos Jabber ID: glezos@xxxxxxxxxx, GPG: 0xA5A04C3B http://dimitris.glezos.com/ "He who gives up functionality for ease of use loses both and deserves neither." (Anonymous) -- -- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
