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 18:30:00 GMT
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