On Friday, 16 August 2013 at 18:09:04 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 8/16/13 10:56 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 16 August 2013 at 17:41:19 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
The converse risk is balkanization. We already have subgroups
that are
effectively dead, for which similar arguments were made in
the past.
Problem with current subgroups is that they are created on
topic basis,
not to solve some specific problems. Such groups become
useless once
person who is the driving force behind the relevant project
stops using
it. I'd probably favor deleting such obsolete groups (dtl, dwt,
debugger?) but it is a different topic.
Documentation group has clear target audience (newcomers with
questions/proposals about the spec + ones willing to
contribute to
dlang.org) and very specific problem to solve (most non-trivial
documentation changes are impossible without prior discussion).
The argument is built from a mistaken angle. "Thinking of doing
some work on docs in the future, let's create a group for docs!"
Things should happen organically, i.e. creating a specialized
group should follow a need substantiated by increased volume of
specialized discussion in the general group. At this point
there is nothing in that vein.
Andrei
I understand were you are coming from. And, while I currently
feel that it's a bit of a catch-22 situation, I think it is worth
at least trying out your suggestion of marking document related
threads with "[dox]".
