On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Adam Sommer <asomme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Scott, > >> >> I would particularly like it if this meant we could do more to fix docs in >> current releases. Both of the docs bugs I recently files should be fixed >> for >> Lucid as well as Maverick. > > > I think past releases will have to be updated using the SRU process. I know > the Doc Team is usually pretty/very slow to issue updates, but since the > package was in those releases, I think the past process will apply. > Anyone on the Doc Team have input about that issue?
The issue we have here is that the bzr branch in which the serverguide is stored is essentially an Ubuntu source package - i.e. the source package for ubuntu-docs. Changing that bzr branch means that any upload we do to an existing Ubuntu release of the package will have those changes in it, even if that document is not something that appears in a binary package. That in turn means that when a document is modified in our bzr branch, we have to be mindful of the SRU process. We also need to bear in mind that where a change is made to the serverguide, even if that change won't appear in a package and will just be published to a website, translators who may well be publishing translated versions are kept informed so that they can also update their translated versions. There are various solutions that come to mind. 1. We can do a better job of scheduling regular SRU uploads, and that might allay Scott's concerns, but because of the nature of string changes and the need to allow time for translators, I don't think we can necessarily guarantee that the fixes will be fast to appear. 2. We could take the serverguide out of the ubuntu-docs bzr branch / source package, and put it in its own bzr branch which wouldn't be a source package and which wouldn't have the same constraints. That would raise some process issues about how the docteam would manage the separate branch and translations of the guide, which is a conversation I'm happy to have, but equally would be quite a big change so we should discuss it carefully. Possible disadvantages might include having to manage different processes for different documents; and potential divergence of common files used (such as those in the "libs" folder). 3. We could keep the serverguide in the ubuntu-docs bzr branch / source package but ask anyone reviewing SRU uploads to ignore any changes to that document on the basis that it doesn't appear in any binary packages anyway. Again we would need to establish a process for information translators about any changes to the document anyway. I'm not a bzr or packaging expert so I'd be very interested in any other suggestions or opinions. -- Matthew East http://www.mdke.org gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
