Hi again,
> It is perfectly reasonable that I argue to strive to make
> fewer forks and less content in the CentOS wiki under that
> rubric, as success means the future's primary source doco is
> better for _all_ FOSS approaches
I think it's not that easy to handle. Let's take a look at another
e
>> Unless I misinterpreted, you're basically saying that to a writer they
>> need to go work at the project they are documenting, not CentOS
>>
>
> no, I agree that you have me right that I think content needs
> to first go at the proper trailhead in all cases
>
>
Would this do as a rule?
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Max Hetrick wrote:
> R P Herrold wrote:
>
>> if you are referring to me, your projection into what I wrote
>> has mislead you.
> Well, I was kind of referring to what you said here:
>
> >> If people want to write content, they NEED TO GO TO FEDORA, or
> >> the upstream, and g
R P Herrold wrote:
> if you are referring to me, your projection into what I wrote
> has mislead you.
Well, I was kind of referring to what you said here:
>> If people want to write content, they NEED TO GO TO FEDORA, or
>> the upstream, and get patches accepted, so the changes flow
>> back
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:56:20PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Max Hetrick wrote:
>
> > You have one team member stating they believe writers should
> > go upstream for all documentation purposes,
>
> if you are referring to me, your projection into what I wrote
> has misle
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Max Hetrick wrote:
> You have one team member stating they believe writers should
> go upstream for all documentation purposes,
if you are referring to me, your projection into what I wrote
has mislead you.
-- Russ herrold
___
Ce
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Marcus Moeller wrote:
> different pov). I have also suggested that docs like the CentOS
> specific owlriver rpm howtos (http://www.owlriver.com/tips/non-root/)
> could as well resist on the CentOS wiki. But it's not my decision.
I assume 'reside' for 'resist' ... Scope is on
Marcus Moeller wrote:
> So I am a bit disappointed (but can understand) ppl. like Max who
> already contributed high quality docs in the past are re-signing from
> contributing to the wiki (just because one or two other guys have a
> different pov). I have also suggested that docs like the CentOS
Dear Karan.
>> For Spacewalk e.g., I have started to improve the 'official' upstream
>> docs a bit (which are already quite good), instead of re-generating
>> content.
>
> Btw, there is also an effort underway to have a centos specific
> spacewalk repo hosted on centos.org to make life even easier
On 09/17/2009 07:31 AM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
> I personally agree on that. We have similar issues with the Spacewalk
> documentation (another thread :?). It would be great to have something
> like an installation guide covering the CentOS specific aspects and
> links to the upstream docs.
Thats i
On 09/17/2009 07:10 AM, Christoph Maser wrote:
> I think it is a proper installation how to install nagios from rpmforge.
> Can you say exactly what is wrong with it? And what ist the MS thingy?
it looks, to me anyway, more like howto use yum and example chkconfig
commands.
--
Karanbir Singh :
On 09/17/2009 07:07 AM, Christoph Maser wrote:
> So we should make a proper nagios documentation on the centos-wiki
> because the official nagios docs suck?
Read my last email in reply to Max. Things are not really that black and
white. Nagios docs suck. Their developers have made it a point to g
On 09/16/2009 07:13 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
> In my experience with working with Nagios, the problem that always came
> up was that people didn't know where to even start because there were
> too many options, and they were overwhelmed.
I totally agree. Having enough content in one place so that so
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:26:48AM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
>> We at CentOS are an enterprise rebuild as the core product.
>> Nothing more. That is OUR trailhead
> Then this should be made VERY plain on the wiki's front
> page.
as noted at the onse
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:16 AM, JohnS wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:12 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
>> We (ELRepo) haven't packaged older nvidia drivers (yet) but we can
>> certainly look into that if there is a demand.
> ---
> Maybe consider doing it? I myself use a lot of older hardware with
Wiki Admins,
I will no longer be participating in the CentOS wiki. I've removed my
name from any of the pages that were submitted by me, and welcome others
to do so with the pages as they wish.
I'd like to be removed from the EditGroup, as well as have my account
deleted.
Username: MaxHetrick
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:26:48AM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Christoph Maser wrote:
>
> We at CentOS are an enterprise rebuild as the core product.
> Nothing more. That is OUR trailhead
>
Then this should be made VERY plain on the wiki's front page.
There are many articl
R P Herrold wrote:
> If people want to write content, they NEED TO GO TO FEDORA, or
> the upstream, and get patches accepted, so the changes flow
> back down in our future. Go work at the trailhead, not in an
> upstream project's past (here Nagios).
Your attitude on the wiki is exactly why pe
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Christoph Maser wrote:
> So we should make a proper nagios documentation on the
> centos-wiki because the official nagios docs suck?
I've said it before, and thought I was a voice crying alone in
the wilderness -- welcome, Christoph ;)
> herrold prior:
> WHY are we buildi
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:12 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
> JohnS wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 15:11 -0400, Scott Robbins wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:51:23PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The only reason for me to keep maintaining the d
2009/9/17 Karanbir Singh :
> On 09/17/2009 02:22 PM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
>> Atm. I am working on another task (documenting re-build procedure)
>
> isnt that just a case of running revisor over the tree ?
Of course some tasks could be handled with revisor, but not everything
I am in need of. I am
On 09/17/2009 02:22 PM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
> Atm. I am working on another task (documenting re-build procedure)
isnt that just a case of running revisor over the tree ?
--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522...@icq
___
CentOS-docs mailing
Dear Patrice.
>> We have similar issues with the Spacewalk
>> documentation (another thread :?). It would be great to have something
>> like an installation guide covering the CentOS specific aspects and
>> links to the upstream docs.
>>
>> For Spacewalk e.g., I have started to improve the 'offici
Marcus Moeller wrote :
> [...]
> We have similar issues with the Spacewalk
> documentation (another thread :?). It would be great to have something
> like an installation guide covering the CentOS specific aspects and
> links to the upstream docs.
>
> For Spacewalk e.g., I have started to improve t
The true URL: http://wiki.nagios.org
Regards: FRamonTB
--- El jue, 17/9/09, Christoph Maser escribió:
De: Christoph Maser
Asunto: Re: [CentOS-docs] Contribution to wiki: nagios incompatibility with
centos 5.2
Para: "Mail list for wiki articles"
Fecha: jueves, 17 septiembre, 2009 8:12
Am Mi
Christoph Maser wrote:
> So we should make a proper nagios documentation on the centos-wiki
> because the official nagios docs suck?
No, but I don't see that it's a problem that it's on the CentOS wiki.
There are lots of guides on the wiki that aren't exactly CentOS
specific, so does that mean
26 matches
Mail list logo
