Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <452D6C9C.8040201@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:13:48 -0700
From: Daniel John Debrunner <djd@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: Discussion: Feedback needed on the Documentation Review process
References: <9f40b500610100938v29665b86ve1bb7e371756aeb4@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9f40b500610100938v29665b86ve1bb7e371756aeb4@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Laura Stewart wrote:
> For the 10.2 Documentation Review process, a wiki was used to log
> comments and track the status of those comments.
> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/TenTwoDocReview

[snip]

> Was the wiki a good way to conduct the reviews?

I found adding an entry to the wiki was in some ways more painful than 
entering a Jira issue. The pain was the manual formating of the table 
and distractions would cause one to lose the edit lock on the wiki page, 
in one case losing my comments.

Then with the wiki there is no good tracking of how the issue was 
resolved, no link to the patch number or the Jira entry that fixed it.

So maybe just using Jira is better as it's fairly quick, doesn't lose 
issues and allows tracking. Might result in a large number of Jira 
issues but I'm nt sure that's really a problem.

Some direct markup of an html page on the site directly would be much 
better though. :-) I saw a page with a number of minor mistakes on it 
the other day, but it seemed a lot of effort to write those up in a Jira 
entry, namely having to describe the mistake, which document, section, 
paragraph etc. that it occurs in.

Dan.