FDP docs process - round 2

[Dave Pawson]

On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 21:59, Karsten Wade wrote:


> I think there's a step/process missing in the middle there.  I just
> encountered having two active versions of the "same" document and need
> another doc-bug for it.  I got to thinking about how this could be
> handled in the process, and so am proposing a solution, presented as a
> *new* lifecycle for a document, DocA:
> 
> 1. Open BugA1 for DocA while you are writing it, assigned to the
> in-progress doc tracker bug, TrackProgress.  BugA1 is the bug you pass
> to editors, QA and release, etc. as defined in the process.
> 
> 2. When ready to post, reassign BugA1 to TrackRelease, the release
> tracking bug.

Which makes one 'name' align with two items? 


> 
> 3. When DocA is released against a version of Fedora, the associated
> BugA1 is sent back to TrackProgress.  It remains in TrackProgress while
> it is being maintained.
And its purpose is...

   Sounds like the sort of 'what if' guessing that occurs?


> 
> 4. At some point, Fedora releases a new version, and DocA is going to be
> branched for the new version into DocA1.  At this point, BugA2 is opened
> for DocA2, the new version.  BugA2 and BugA1 can now work in parallel,
> each pointing at a specific version of a doc in CVS.

Suggest a KISS principle is far more appropriate.
If it happens, deal with it.


> Pluses? Minuses?  I'll fix this into the XML process doc if it makes
> sense.

Not to me Karsten. Sounds like ISO9000 on steroids. Processes for the
sake of it? 


-- 
Regards DaveP.
XSLT&Docbook  FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl