couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Trivial Update of "CouchDB_in_the_wild" by wentforgold
Date Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:28:00 GMT
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