couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Trivial Update of "CouchDB_in_the_wild" by wentforgold
Date Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:30:48 GMT
Yes, Peter, there is better documentation available for couchdb
outside of our the projects official site. That's part of the problem
we're addressing. The best place for couchdb documentation should be
couchdb.apache.org, like it is for most other Apache projects.

B.

On 13 June 2011 19:30, Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also we should jab them with forks.
>
>
>
> On 13 June 2011 19:28, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +1 for commit requirement in addition to being a release requirement.
>>> At the very least, we get the docs fixed during the release process,
>>> but it ought to be done with the commit itself. In practice, we'll
>>> forget sometimes, and then be reminded by others on the team.
>>>
>>
>> Right. I'm saying "reminded by others" should be "commit vetoed".
>>
>>> B.
>>>
>>> On 13 June 2011 19:17, Robert Dionne <dionne@dionne-associates.com> wrote:
>>>> ++1++
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 13, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> It's not the wiki per se that bothers me, it's that it's the primary,
>>>>>> often only, source of documentation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose that future releases of CouchDB include at least a full
>>>>>> description of all public API's. Improvements above that base level
>>>>>> would be a manual and/or simple tutorials.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This documentation would be maintained in the same source tree as
the
>>>>>> code and it would be a release requirement for this documentation
to
>>>>>> be updated to include all new features.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You had me until you said "release requirement". I would upgrade that
>>>>> to "commit requirement" if we're seriously about having such
>>>>> documentation. If we don't force people to make sure docs reflect
>>>>> changes at commit time then its probably going to be a lost cause.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This documentation is then the primary source, the wiki can serve
as a
>>>>>> supplement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13 June 2011 18:16, Peter Nolan <peterwnolan@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>> Any documentation is good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is this 'spam'?  Haven't personally encountered anything
on the wiki
>>>>>>> that would be 'considered' spam (perhaps not stumbled upon that
portion?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it's inevitable that the wiki will be attacked by unscrupulous
people
>>>>>>> and as such, the wiki should prepare for this.  The wiki is
going to need
>>>>>>> gatekeepers/admins to maintain it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be nice, that any edits be archived so users can see
previous
>>>>>>> states of the page if they so choose so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a noted jerk keeps editing the wiki, we should have a system
that only
>>>>>>> applies his edits to his account.  The common user would not
see his edits,
>>>>>>> only he would, which would hopefully convince him that his edit
has gone
>>>>>>> through.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 top hats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message