On 1/8/14 7:57 PM, jan i wrote: > On 8 January 2014 16:16, Armin Le Grand <armin.le.gr...@me.com> wrote: > >> On 08.01.2014 07:50, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >> >>> On 1/8/14 3:09 PM, jan i wrote: >>> >>>> On 8 January 2014 03:46, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Armin Le Grand <armin.le.gr...@me.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi List, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have added a new branch to the branches part of the repository. I >>>>>>> >>>>>> thought >>>>>> >>>>>>> it would be a good idea to have a place in the wiki to document what >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>> branches are, what they intend to do and to have a central place to >>>>>>> >>>>>> document >>>>>> >>>>>>> what's going on there. For the new branch, I thought about documenting >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>>> state and ongoing work there, instead of adding a file and checking it >>>>>>> >>>>>> in to >>>>>> >>>>>>> svn, that would be in the way when later reintegrating the finished >>>>>>> >>>>>> stuff. >>>>>> >>>>>> A VERY good idea...maybe a main heading -- Development Planning (or >>>>> a name >>>>> of your choosing) -- under Project Planning. Thanks for bringing this >>>>> up...I was just wondering about some of the branches the other day. >>>>> >>>>> isnt that what we already have at >>>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Source_Code >>>> >>>> here we have branches/tags etc documented. >>>> >>>> why should we make a new place ? >>>> >>> no need of course, just a problem to find the hidden secrets in our >>> nirvana ;-) >>> >>> Juergen >>> >> >> Yes, thats why I am asking. I could not really find it, so a place in the >> confluence wiki would be better. I think this would fit perfectly somewhere >> in the development planning area so that everyone interested could find >> what is worked on and evtl. gets even motivated to step in. Isnt that the >> place people look at when they try to find out what is going on? I would be >> ready to document my existing branches in brief and extensively for new >> ones. An initial page per branch and maybe a short description would be >> enough as a minimum (maybe autogenerated when someone creates a branch in >> trunk, adding creation date and creator...just dreaming). >> > please be aware that cwiki is not nearly as visited as mwiki, so putting it > in cwiki is a real good hiding place.
exactly, we should use mediawiki whenever possible, we could move the content from confluence to mediawiki to make it even more clear. Important pages will be monitored and wrong or damaging changes can be corrected. > > >> >> In that form it may also give a preview of what may be coming to the next >> versions (without forcing it, it should be train model based). E.g. with >> accessibility when it would have been documented there it would be more >> clear where it comes from, evtl. how far it is progressed and if it will be >> in one of the next versions (e.g. include a single 'progress' percent >> number). >> > I dont object to the idea, but do we really want to that much red tape > around using branches. I would for sure remove capstone/l10n40 and keep it > local instead if I have to document in cwiki. > > please remember the more documentation (in, at least to me, and unkown wiki > language) makes it more likely that people considering a branch stop the > idea. it should be no must to document in detail but a short paragraph describing for what kind of work the branch in intended can help. And more documentation can help developers to organize their work or can help for collaboration to work with more people on the same branch. But again it should be no must if people lose interest because of the documentation burden. Juergen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
