Karl Guertin wrote: > On 11/13/06, John M Camara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This > > groups archives has over 20,000 messages that contain far more useful > > information on TG than is currently available in docs. If we could > > mine all the useful bits out of these message and turn them into docs, > > a giant leap forward would have been made. > > If someone wants to do this, I'd have no issues with it, but I'll note > that most of those messages are out of date or duplicates. >
I agree that a number of older messages are out of date so that's why I suggested that we list the last 25 messages that have not been tagged. At some point when there are diminishing returns we could just list the remaining older topics out of date. I also agree that many of the messages are duplicates but that is mainly due to incomplete docs. As the docs improve I would expect the number of duplicates will reduce in frequency. > If you want to find useful messages, check the last 4-5 months for > developer messages. If you want to further reduce the size of the > data, drop myself and Jorge Godoy. We both occasionally contribute > something useful but we also spend a lot of messages on community > management. If you're looking for widgets advice, Alberto's and > Michelle's messages are particularly pertinent. > For now it's better to keep it simple then to come up with all kinds of rules. If a good number of volunteers help out with the tagging this process shouldn't take to long to do the initial effort. Once the older topics are tagged very little effort should be required on newer topics. > Outside of the above, there are like 15 or 20 messages that I have > tagged for migration to docs. Most of the remainder of the messages in > the group are either not generally useful (and a google search on this > group would be better than trying to find it in the docs) or are > version-specific bugs that should be fixed by a faster release cycle. > I agree there are some messages that are not useful but even the ones that might not provide much value or maybe slightly off topic are still worth documenting even if it's just added to an FAQ. After all, it was asked once it's likely to come up again. Google searches are helpful but they don't replace good docs. > More directly useful to me would be if people would pull information > off trac and into RoughDocs and confirm the code works for 1.0. The > code review takes most of the effort in these conversions. The > conversion and copy editing process are fairly simple otherwise. I agree. There are many ways to improve the docs. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
