Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 95266 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2006 16:39:06 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Oct 2006 16:39:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 87308 invoked by uid 500); 10 Oct 2006 16:39:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 87293 invoked by uid 500); 10 Oct 2006 16:39:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 87284 invoked by uid 99); 10 Oct 2006 16:39:05 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:39:05 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of scotsmatrix@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.168 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.168] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.168) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:39:03 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id g33so783403ugd for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:38:42 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=DHLGLJtt92r7dR7l4L7VccN5nyTZ1chquPuRksE4x+HrOMB/glmtUdP7rxgPHFjqtHm1yjpWYuaxfV5mcT7S0qzWaWJr/xkuF+vWf3DYFOVPidE1/SoxCAFDhxbt7j8R5R19Jmk7jrgGXga4CGk0wpu8GzDzESRpR+hMXAbf36U= Received: by 10.66.255.7 with SMTP id c7mr692738ugi; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.255.3 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9f40b500610100938v29665b86ve1bb7e371756aeb4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:38:41 -0700 From: "Laura Stewart" To: derby Subject: Discussion: Feedback needed on the Documentation Review process MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 The purpose of the review is to take a comprehensive look at the documentation. Because most documentation updates are made for an isolated bug or feature, the new content isn't always looked at from a broader, library perspective. The end of cycle documentation review enables the community to take a look at the documentation as a whole. As someone who implemented a large number of the comments, I am interested in hearing feedback on the process: What worked well and what needs to be improved in the documentation review process? Was the wiki a good way to conduct the reviews? Did you understand how to log your comments? There were only a few people that participated in the review. What prevented more people from participating? Is the end of cycle the best time to perform the comprehensive review? Should the comprehensive review be performed at the beginning of a feature cycle? In the middle of a feature cycle? Please provide your feedback so that the documentation review process can be improved. Thanks! -- Laura Stewart