cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Consensus about documentation location
Date Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:46:58 GMT
Sylvain Wallez wrote:

> Same concerns as Ugo. We should IMO document 2.1 and use specially 
> labelled sections and pages for what's different in 2.2. We could also 
> uses Daisy branches, but I don't think it's a good idea to start a 
> multi-branch effort right now.

I agree with this also.

>> - once the wiki is "processed" (i.e. all documentation is (re)moved), it
>> will only serve as a scratchpad, either for random thoughts/proposals or
>> for users that want to offer documentation but have no editor rights in
>> the Daisy site. I.e. the content of the wiki should be kept as small as
>> possible and deprecated information should be removed as soon as
>> possible.
> Same concerns as Leszek: writing docs in the wiki would really make 
> non-editors feel like second-class citizen. Additionally to leaving 
> comments, we may allow registered users with no particular rights to 
> edit documents belonging to a "scratchpad" collection, distinct from 
> the main document collection. That will allow us to quickly move 
> around good contributions to the main area and also educate editor 
> wannabees to the CMS features.

Here I have to disagree with you.  I don't think that all the content 
that is on the Wiki should necessarily find its way to the :"formal" 
documentation.  I think the wiki serves that purpose well.  It allows 
users a place to document things that they have learned which may not 
have a good place in the formal documentation.  So, just because users 
can't directly update the formal documentation I don't think they will 
feel like second class citizens. I think they'd be quite surprised if 
they could update the formal documentation.  And actually, I think they 
would be quite pleased and honored if whatever they wrote was moved from 
the wiki into the formal docmentation by an editor.

I really don't see this as much different than how things are with the 
code.  Users can write patches and submit them to bugzilla or they can 
post code snippets on the wiki, but they cannot update svn. 

> Sylvain

View raw message