Re: [CentOS-docs] status of https://wiki.centos.org/Documentation
On 22/03/16 10:02, François Cami wrote: > With that said, provided we find a way to mention how to mention that > unambiguously, I'm ok with it. the way to do this is to self host the content, with relevant disclaimers and an effecient/functional process to edit and remove content not relevant. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] status of https://wiki.centos.org/Documentation
On 22/03/16 07:30, Fabian Arrotin wrote: > Hi, > > I was having a look at that page, and was wondering what we can do for > point #3 (Manuals and other documentation) > As we have no real content for CentOS 6 and 7 , my idea was just to > explain in one line that (while technically not the CentOS > documentation) , almost all the points coming from uptream documentation > ( - except for subscription manager - ) can be applied to CentOS and so > having link from that section to https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/ > > Ideas, thoughts, comments ? > -1 from me, CentOS scope isnt the same as RHEL ones. if we cant get the docs and host / adapt to taste, I am ok for us to move the existing docs into an archive/ area, but retain it on the site, along with the relevant content redirection as needed, and just drop having current release docs. if none is willing to do the work to make centos docs possible, clearly the community has rejected having these docs in the first place. regards -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] status of https://wiki.centos.org/Documentation
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote: > On 22/03/16 10:21, François Cami wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Manuel Wolfshant >> wrote: >>> On 03/22/2016 09:30 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote: Hi, I was having a look at that page, and was wondering what we can do for point #3 (Manuals and other documentation) As we have no real content for CentOS 6 and 7 , my idea was just to explain in one line that (while technically not the CentOS documentation) , almost all the points coming from uptream documentation ( - except for subscription manager - ) can be applied to CentOS and so having link from that section to https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/ Ideas, thoughts, comments ? >>> +1 for that. it's long overdue. >> >> -1 from me, because access.redhat.com documentation contains support >> statements which are irrelevant to the CentOS project. I'd very much >> like to avoid generating (more) confusion in potential users. > > Yes, but I was mentioning documentation about how to > deploy/configure/maintain it, but you have a point : so the note would > need to mention that everything regarding support channels and > subscriptions should be considered "not applicable" to CentOS > It's true that it can confuse potential users, but not having > documentation at all doesn't help, and from what I see in #centos or > forums, people are already pointed to the only existing doc, aka the > upstream ones My concern is not with users technically savvy enough to connect to Freenode channels, because these sort-of know the difference between community projects and enterprise, supported products. With that said, provided we find a way to mention how to mention that unambiguously, I'm ok with it. François ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] status of https://wiki.centos.org/Documentation
On 22/03/16 10:21, François Cami wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Manuel Wolfshant > wrote: >> On 03/22/2016 09:30 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was having a look at that page, and was wondering what we can do for >>> point #3 (Manuals and other documentation) >>> As we have no real content for CentOS 6 and 7 , my idea was just to >>> explain in one line that (while technically not the CentOS >>> documentation) , almost all the points coming from uptream documentation >>> ( - except for subscription manager - ) can be applied to CentOS and so >>> having link from that section to >>> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/ >>> >>> Ideas, thoughts, comments ? >>> >> +1 for that. it's long overdue. > > -1 from me, because access.redhat.com documentation contains support > statements which are irrelevant to the CentOS project. I'd very much > like to avoid generating (more) confusion in potential users. > > François Yes, but I was mentioning documentation about how to deploy/configure/maintain it, but you have a point : so the note would need to mention that everything regarding support channels and subscriptions should be considered "not applicable" to CentOS It's true that it can confuse potential users, but not having documentation at all doesn't help, and from what I see in #centos or forums, people are already pointed to the only existing doc, aka the upstream ones -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] status of https://wiki.centos.org/Documentation
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > On 03/22/2016 09:30 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I was having a look at that page, and was wondering what we can do for >> point #3 (Manuals and other documentation) >> As we have no real content for CentOS 6 and 7 , my idea was just to >> explain in one line that (while technically not the CentOS >> documentation) , almost all the points coming from uptream documentation >> ( - except for subscription manager - ) can be applied to CentOS and so >> having link from that section to >> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/ >> >> Ideas, thoughts, comments ? >> > +1 for that. it's long overdue. -1 from me, because access.redhat.com documentation contains support statements which are irrelevant to the CentOS project. I'd very much like to avoid generating (more) confusion in potential users. François ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] status of https://wiki.centos.org/Documentation
On 03/22/2016 09:30 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote: Hi, I was having a look at that page, and was wondering what we can do for point #3 (Manuals and other documentation) As we have no real content for CentOS 6 and 7 , my idea was just to explain in one line that (while technically not the CentOS documentation) , almost all the points coming from uptream documentation ( - except for subscription manager - ) can be applied to CentOS and so having link from that section to https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/ Ideas, thoughts, comments ? +1 for that. it's long overdue. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] status of https://wiki.centos.org/Documentation
Hi, I was having a look at that page, and was wondering what we can do for point #3 (Manuals and other documentation) As we have no real content for CentOS 6 and 7 , my idea was just to explain in one line that (while technically not the CentOS documentation) , almost all the points coming from uptream documentation ( - except for subscription manager - ) can be applied to CentOS and so having link from that section to https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/ Ideas, thoughts, comments ? -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
