Richard Lowe wrote: > I just feel the need to resist any kind of push to make the published > documentation *user*-friendly, when users aren't at all the intended > audience. Technical documentation is what is useful, publishing > background material in addition to it is certainly valuable > (documentation from the various wikis one sees referenced, almost > certainly). But cutting up the internally available documentation to > make it more palatable to an audience other than the one originally > intended (and the one it's most useful to) can only end up losing > information or context that may turn out to be valuable. > > I'd even suggest that it'd be far better (in future, obviously) to use > exactly the same documentation on both sides of fence, and given that, > making edits to existing documentation seems fruitless (or likely to run > the risk of all future documentation being similarly molested).
Or in fact, not have any fences at all. While it's certainly encouraging from my point of view to seeing these types of documents being released, and better still, detailed listings like - http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/testbed/ it still feels a little odd that there's no actual interaction happening other than these 'top down' set of policies [or recommendations]. While I can appreciate the lack of infrastructure currently available on opensolaris.org, are we getting to a point where we can substitute psarc/lsarc at sun.com for arc[-discu...@sun.com? It's been pointed out [la la la] that there are close to 300 ARC cases since opensolaris.org was launched - that's a sizable wad of technical information that would be of huge benefit to non-Sun people. Glynn
