On Thursday 23 March 2006 17:46, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 04:46:02PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > > ...and it's unlikely that they will, now or later, without
> > > somebody whose whole job is to monitor those comments and make
> > > patches.
> >
> > Well, we do make some attempt at rolling comments into the docs
> > where appropriate, but we could certainly use more dedicated
> > contributors in that area.
>
> If we're going to get dedicated contributors, we could direct their
> efforts to things a *lot* more productive than this. Improving the
> formal docs, for example.
>
Uh, that's what we're talking about David, having someone who would be willing
to take doc comments and roll them into the formal docs.
> > > I'd like to make a Modest Proposalâ?¢: Let's take down the
> > > interactive documents and, in their place, put up a request that
> > > doc patches be sent to -docs.
> > >
> > > What say?
> >
> > I'd say you're anti-interactive comments :-)
>
> I'm not against them. I'm just *for* improving the existing docs, and
> those comments don't (and won't, very likely) have any pipeline into
> those. Are you personally volunteering for this task, Robert?
>
Well David, I have actually already submitted multiple patches to the docs
directly based on documentation comments, check the archives. Also I know Tom
has gone through a number of times in the past in an attempt to cull
improvements. The things is, we're busy guys, so we can't exactly do it
alone. If we could get some more volunteers, the process would be better.
Even if we can't I still think it is worthwhile, but I'll cover that more in
a bit.
> > More importantly, people just aren't going to to write patches for
> > doc additions... the overhead is several orders of magnitudes
> > greater than filling at a web form... so getting rid of the comments
> > is sure to lose any gains that we receive.
>
> What gains? As I said, I'm not against it, but right now, those
> things just go down the memory hole to the benefit of nobody. The
> detriment, I'd say, because somebody has wasted their time.
>
Not true. First, there have been doc improvements based on those comments.
Furthermore, people do find the doc comments helpful; they find information
clearing things up online and when google searching. In fact more people
could be helped if things like the docbot pointed to the interactive docs,
though for some reason the guys running that thing refuse to do so.
> > What I have tried to garner support for in the past was to either
> > direct those submission to this group for approval/rejection, which
> > would make the folks generally interested in docs directly involved
> > in the process.
>
> Somebody has to vet this. Please feel free to step up :)
Um, maybe I wasn't clear when I said "I have tried to garner support", but I
have tried to garner support, and it got shot down. Can it be your turn now?
>
> > The other option would be to mail approved doc comments to this
> > group so that someone could work them up into doc patches if
> > applicable. That really is a factor, most of the comments would need
> > to be reworded to be added into the docs proper.
> >
> > In the past these ideas were rejected as either off-topic or that it
> > would turn this list into a high traffic list... if peoples opinions
> > have changed, it could be arranged.
>
> I'm voicing a rejection for 'em again on the same grounds. Until we
> have a person whose paid, full-time job is web-comment rassling, this
> is a non-starter.
>
Well there you go. You complain that the interactive docs aren't merged
upstream enough, but protest any effort to get subscribers from the _docs
mailing list_ involved.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
