Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Same concerns as Ugo. We should IMO document 2.1 and use specially
labelled sections and pages for what's different in 2.2. We could also
uses Daisy branches, but I don't think it's a good idea to start a
multi-branch effort right now.
I agree with this also.
- once the wiki is "processed" (i.e. all documentation is (re)moved), it
will only serve as a scratchpad, either for random thoughts/proposals or
for users that want to offer documentation but have no editor rights in
the Daisy site. I.e. the content of the wiki should be kept as small as
possible and deprecated information should be removed as soon as
possible.
Same concerns as Leszek: writing docs in the wiki would really make
non-editors feel like second-class citizen. Additionally to leaving
comments, we may allow registered users with no particular rights to
edit documents belonging to a "scratchpad" collection, distinct from
the main document collection. That will allow us to quickly move
around good contributions to the main area and also educate editor
wannabees to the CMS features.
Here I have to disagree with you. I don't think that all the content
that is on the Wiki should necessarily find its way to the :"formal"
documentation. I think the wiki serves that purpose well. It allows
users a place to document things that they have learned which may not
have a good place in the formal documentation. So, just because users
can't directly update the formal documentation I don't think they will
feel like second class citizens. I think they'd be quite surprised if
they could update the formal documentation. And actually, I think they
would be quite pleased and honored if whatever they wrote was moved from
the wiki into the formal docmentation by an editor.
I really don't see this as much different than how things are with the
code. Users can write patches and submit them to bugzilla or they can
post code snippets on the wiki, but they cannot update svn.
Sylvain
Ralph
- Re: [VOTE] Consensus about documentation location Ralph Goers
-
