[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: All formats



On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 16:38 -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting Karsten Wade <kwade redhat com>:
> 
> > Yes, we are working on fixing the Doc Guide and Quick Start Guide to be
> > better.  Let's keep that discussion separate.  Same for the processes.
> 
> Okay.  How can we help?

Just like the software development process which you folks at FLP have
been doing so well!  (Little pat on the back never hurts, thanks for
helping me keep my Red Hat Linux 9 box working for long enough to move
to Fedora 3.)  Identify problems and file a bug in Bugzilla against the
"fedora-docs" component of Fedora Core.

I am going out on a limb here, but I will bet that eventually, if we get
enough high-quality docs together, there will be a FCn-docs.iso in the
distribution.  That's my personal 3-year goal, if there could be such a
thing in this fast-moving environment!

> > First, our process for taking submissions and turning them into docs is
> > entirely separate from the tool used to generate the docs.
> >
> > As a project, we are centered around DocBook and XML.  I think this is
> > the right thing to do, to have a single source for documentation that
> > can generate _all_ formats.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > We will take a new doc in any format.
> > 
> > We will help to convert it to DocBook XML.
> > 
> > All new documents _must_ have a maintainer who commits to keeping the
> > doc up to date.  That person doesn't have to be the original author.
> 
> This type of clear, concise info is needed on the FDP web site.

We could link to this on the fedoraproject.org wiki...

> > If you can only write in {Wiki, HTML, plain text, RTF, troff, LaTeX},
> > then go ahead.  After we convert it for you for maintenance, you can
> > learn the DocBook.  It's just not that hard.  Really.  And you can use
> 
> Or, they can find someone else to maintain it in theory, so they never
> have to learn DocBook/CVS/etc.  Sounds good.  But I agree with others
> that the FDP web site does not give this impression.
> Are the web pages for the FDP (http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/,
> the Quick Start Guide, the Documentation Guide, and the Documentation
> Project FAQs) considered as part of the same process, or separate?  How
> would one go about helping with these pages other than as it states
> "If you have any thoughts, please share them on the fedora-docs-list mailing
> list." or using the bugzilla.


Persons with docs CVS access don't necessarily have access to the web
site, but I believe there is a subset of those persons who do.  They can
bring that part in line; the rest of us can do things like make a nice
link on the fp.org wiki.  Are you on the edit list there?

> How about the page http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/MasterTasks
> which isn't listed on the FDP pages but is referenced here.  Who can update
> that? And how does it related to the bugzilla entries for tasks/docs? 

The wiki came along afterward, and the FDP pages at f.r.c haven't caught
up yet.  See above, but you *can* file Bugzilla (still against fedora-
docs) for website problems as well; there's just fewer people who can
address them.

We are still getting the CVS portion worked out, but it's going to be a
matter of days or a couple weeks rather than months, I think.  I am
hoping to pitch in with some Documentation Guide overhaul.  Since I have
a major section under consideration already for inclusion there, it
makes sense for me to devote some time to helping in that regard.

> Interestingly, having just looked at the wiki, I find I should have already
> been there and done some stuff there (like self introduction) but no where
> did I find a reference to any of this...

Please feel free to help if you have time/energy!

> It's like I'm arguing we need a wiki, when apparently we already have one
> and I don't know it...

Yeah, weird, isn't it?!  ;-D  Thanks for coming to the list, Eric, we're
glad you're here, and hope that it will be worthwhile for you.  Uh.... I
guess I'm really just speaking for myself, but I think everyone will
agree to that part at least!

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]