Glynn Foster wrote:
>
> 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?
^^^^^^^^ opensolaris.org ;)
I think separate lists under the ARC community would be more
appropriate, but yes. This would be a great thing to get done, having
to explicitly request historical cases makes some amount of sense, but
it would make more sense for new cases to be open by default.
-- Rich.
