[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Documentation Standard Document & Call to Vote
Hello. Silvia and me have created a DRAFT for XWiki.org Documentation Standard found at : http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWikiOrgDocumentationStandard In order to move towards the final version, we need your input on 2 issues. - For which project version we create & maintain documentation - Which skins we are going to support in the documentation (latest/all) Although, these issues were discussed in December 2009, no final result came out of them. http://markmail.org/message/ou7hgdiiwgayghku#query:+page:1+mid:ou7hgdiiwgayg... 1. the project version (XE version for ex) for which the documentation is created/updated/maintained. We have several choices: a) We make the documentation only for the latest version. b) We make the documentation only for the latest version, and we export the pages at release time and make it available as a zipped HTML export so that people using the older version can refer to them. c) We make the doc work the last 2 releases. That would be 2.3 and 2.4. Note: If option b) is chosen then we need to add a step to the release process. (export for every release) 2. The skin used for documenting steps. This also includes the screenshots. Again we have several choices: a) Document only for the latest default skin. b) Document for all supported skins. Right now that would be Toucan + Colibri (not sure about Albatross, I don't think we've officially said it wasn't supported). Note: If option b) is chosen, this would mean 2 screenshots for the same feature (one for each skin) The vote content was mostly taken from the markmail link above. If you have any other suggestions regarding this draft, please reply and state your opinion. We need as much feedback as possible in order to create a solid documentation standard.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:55, Sorin Burjan <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello.
Silvia and me have created a DRAFT for XWiki.org Documentation Standard found at : http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWikiOrgDocumentationStandard
In order to move towards the final version, we need your input on 2 issues. - For which project version we create & maintain documentation - Which skins we are going to support in the documentation (latest/all)
Although, these issues were discussed in December 2009, no final result came out of them. http://markmail.org/message/ou7hgdiiwgayghku#query:+page:1+mid:ou7hgdiiwgayg...
1. the project version (XE version for ex) for which the documentation is created/updated/maintained. We have several choices: a) We make the documentation only for the latest version. b) We make the documentation only for the latest version, and we export the pages at release time and make it available as a zipped HTML export so that people using the older version can refer to them.
That would make sense only we we had a perfect documentation always updated which is currently not the case. There is lot's of missing stuff that someone will add at some point that will be true for old versions too.
c) We make the doc work the last 2 releases. That would be 2.3 and 2.4.
s/releases/branches/ d) What is done currently in many places is to indicate for a feature the version where it has been introduced, it does not make sense everywhere i guess but in some places it's very useful.
Note: If option b) is chosen then we need to add a step to the release process. (export for every release)
2. The skin used for documenting steps. This also includes the screenshots. Again we have several choices: a) Document only for the latest default skin.
+1 for a) i doubt we can do b). BTW I'm pretty sure we already talked about that not so long ago.
b) Document for all supported skins. Right now that would be Toucan + Colibri (not sure about Albatross, I don't think we've officially said it wasn't supported).
Note: If option b) is chosen, this would mean 2 screenshots for the same feature (one for each skin)
The vote content was mostly taken from the markmail link above.
If you have any other suggestions regarding this draft, please reply and state your opinion. We need as much feedback as possible in order to create a solid documentation standard.
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:55, Sorin Burjan <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello.
Silvia and me have created a DRAFT for XWiki.org Documentation Standard found at : http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWikiOrgDocumentationStandard
Even if I found your procedures smart and very conscientious, I am a little bit afraid by them, and just wonder if these will not finally slow down the documentation, since only very minor change can be done quickly. As everyone knows, documentation is never what we d'like to do, and if you increase the burden, it will probably not encourage improvements. My idea is that there should be an additional intermediate editing situation, where you improve or add a section in the current documentation directly without going to a draft and review cycle (almost like when you fix a issue without vote when you know what to do). You could also add precision when you read the documentation and have failed to catch it, to avoid the next one to also have the same trouble. I have the impression that we loose the wiki nature of the collaboration by using these procedures.... ... and this could be a larger reflexion on the feature of XWiki since such situation is not uncommon. I have already some idea about that, but I had never have time enough to write them in details. Briefly, IMO we should offer a feature that allows a document to have its current version not the latest one, until the author of the latest version confirm his desire to publish their changes. As you said, we never want to see unbacked bread, and this is why, in some situation, direct publication is not appropriate. I will not say more here since this is clearly another thread....
In order to move towards the final version, we need your input on 2 issues. - For which project version we create & maintain documentation - Which skins we are going to support in the documentation (latest/all)
Although, these issues were discussed in December 2009, no final result came out of them.
http://markmail.org/message/ou7hgdiiwgayghku#query:+page:1+mid:ou7hgdiiwgayg...
1. the project version (XE version for ex) for which the documentation is created/updated/maintained. We have several choices: a) We make the documentation only for the latest version. b) We make the documentation only for the latest version, and we export the pages at release time and make it available as a zipped HTML export so that people using the older version can refer to them. c) We make the doc work the last 2 releases. That would be 2.3 and 2.4.
Note: If option b) is chosen then we need to add a step to the release process. (export for every release)
For me b) is not an option, documentation is not written / updated on release day, but before it, when the features are released in the Mx and RCx versions. Since we start Mx of next release before release of previous one, we cannot managed such versioning easily. For now, to stay reasonable, I think we should do as we do in source code, and mention the version were a feature is introduced or changed when confusion should be avoided.
2. The skin used for documenting steps. This also includes the screenshots. Again we have several choices: a) Document only for the latest default skin. b) Document for all supported skins. Right now that would be Toucan + Colibri (not sure about Albatross, I don't think we've officially said it wasn't supported).
Note: If option b) is chosen, this would mean 2 screenshots for the same feature (one for each skin)
I doubt we could do b), reaching a correct a) is already an issue when the default skin is upgraded. Denis
The vote content was mostly taken from the markmail link above.
If you have any other suggestions regarding this draft, please reply and state your opinion. We need as much feedback as possible in order to create a solid documentation standard.
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO
On Jun 10, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:55, Sorin Burjan <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello.
Silvia and me have created a DRAFT for XWiki.org Documentation Standard found at : http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWikiOrgDocumentationStandard
Even if I found your procedures smart and very conscientious, I am a little bit afraid by them, and just wonder if these will not finally slow down the documentation, since only very minor change can be done quickly. As everyone knows, documentation is never what we d'like to do, and if you increase the burden, it will probably not encourage improvements.
I haven't read the proposal yet, just answering to this part. Yes but we want a good quality for the documentation same as we want a good quality for the code. What we did for the code is prevent anyone modifying it by adding a notion of committer and people can still contribute patches which are then reviewed by committers. Committers agree with the rules for ensuring quality. The best solution IMO for having quality docs is to: - close xwiki.org so that it's editable only to committers and people voted as wiki editors (we need a process to get casual readers into wiki editors) - leave annotations/comments for people wanting to contribute small stuff - allow anyone to access the Draft space - make it very visible and easy how to contribute to xwiki.org (ie being selected to be in the wiki editors group) I don't see other solutions. If we leave it open then it'll committers/wiki editors who will have to fix what people contribute which is a pain after a few times. WDYT? Thanks -Vincent
My idea is that there should be an additional intermediate editing situation, where you improve or add a section in the current documentation directly without going to a draft and review cycle (almost like when you fix a issue without vote when you know what to do). You could also add precision when you read the documentation and have failed to catch it, to avoid the next one to also have the same trouble. I have the impression that we loose the wiki nature of the collaboration by using these procedures....
... and this could be a larger reflexion on the feature of XWiki since such situation is not uncommon. I have already some idea about that, but I had never have time enough to write them in details. Briefly, IMO we should offer a feature that allows a document to have its current version not the latest one, until the author of the latest version confirm his desire to publish their changes. As you said, we never want to see unbacked bread, and this is why, in some situation, direct publication is not appropriate. I will not say more here since this is clearly another thread....
In order to move towards the final version, we need your input on 2 issues. - For which project version we create & maintain documentation - Which skins we are going to support in the documentation (latest/all)
Although, these issues were discussed in December 2009, no final result came out of them.
http://markmail.org/message/ou7hgdiiwgayghku#query:+page:1+mid:ou7hgdiiwgayg...
1. the project version (XE version for ex) for which the documentation is created/updated/maintained. We have several choices: a) We make the documentation only for the latest version. b) We make the documentation only for the latest version, and we export the pages at release time and make it available as a zipped HTML export so that people using the older version can refer to them. c) We make the doc work the last 2 releases. That would be 2.3 and 2.4.
Note: If option b) is chosen then we need to add a step to the release process. (export for every release)
For me b) is not an option, documentation is not written / updated on release day, but before it, when the features are released in the Mx and RCx versions. Since we start Mx of next release before release of previous one, we cannot managed such versioning easily. For now, to stay reasonable, I think we should do as we do in source code, and mention the version were a feature is introduced or changed when confusion should be avoided.
2. The skin used for documenting steps. This also includes the screenshots. Again we have several choices: a) Document only for the latest default skin. b) Document for all supported skins. Right now that would be Toucan + Colibri (not sure about Albatross, I don't think we've officially said it wasn't supported).
Note: If option b) is chosen, this would mean 2 screenshots for the same feature (one for each skin)
I doubt we could do b), reaching a correct a) is already an issue when the default skin is upgraded.
Denis
The vote content was mostly taken from the markmail link above.
If you have any other suggestions regarding this draft, please reply and state your opinion. We need as much feedback as possible in order to create a solid documentation standard.
On Jun 11, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Jun 10, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:55, Sorin Burjan <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello.
Silvia and me have created a DRAFT for XWiki.org Documentation Standard found at : http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWikiOrgDocumentationStandard
Even if I found your procedures smart and very conscientious, I am a little bit afraid by them, and just wonder if these will not finally slow down the documentation, since only very minor change can be done quickly. As everyone knows, documentation is never what we d'like to do, and if you increase the burden, it will probably not encourage improvements.
I haven't read the proposal yet, just answering to this part.
Yes but we want a good quality for the documentation same as we want a good quality for the code. What we did for the code is prevent anyone modifying it by adding a notion of committer and people can still contribute patches which are then reviewed by committers. Committers agree with the rules for ensuring quality.
The best solution IMO for having quality docs is to: - close xwiki.org so that it's editable only to committers and people voted as wiki editors (we need a process to get casual readers into wiki editors)
note that I didn't mean "voted" as in vote for the code. We can easily make it a lightweight process where it's enough for example to be sponsored by a xwiki committer without asking the others. -Vincent
- leave annotations/comments for people wanting to contribute small stuff - allow anyone to access the Draft space - make it very visible and easy how to contribute to xwiki.org (ie being selected to be in the wiki editors group)
I don't see other solutions. If we leave it open then it'll committers/wiki editors who will have to fix what people contribute which is a pain after a few times.
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
My idea is that there should be an additional intermediate editing situation, where you improve or add a section in the current documentation directly without going to a draft and review cycle (almost like when you fix a issue without vote when you know what to do). You could also add precision when you read the documentation and have failed to catch it, to avoid the next one to also have the same trouble. I have the impression that we loose the wiki nature of the collaboration by using these procedures....
... and this could be a larger reflexion on the feature of XWiki since such situation is not uncommon. I have already some idea about that, but I had never have time enough to write them in details. Briefly, IMO we should offer a feature that allows a document to have its current version not the latest one, until the author of the latest version confirm his desire to publish their changes. As you said, we never want to see unbacked bread, and this is why, in some situation, direct publication is not appropriate. I will not say more here since this is clearly another thread....
In order to move towards the final version, we need your input on 2 issues. - For which project version we create & maintain documentation - Which skins we are going to support in the documentation (latest/all)
Although, these issues were discussed in December 2009, no final result came out of them.
http://markmail.org/message/ou7hgdiiwgayghku#query:+page:1+mid:ou7hgdiiwgayg...
1. the project version (XE version for ex) for which the documentation is created/updated/maintained. We have several choices: a) We make the documentation only for the latest version. b) We make the documentation only for the latest version, and we export the pages at release time and make it available as a zipped HTML export so that people using the older version can refer to them. c) We make the doc work the last 2 releases. That would be 2.3 and 2.4.
Note: If option b) is chosen then we need to add a step to the release process. (export for every release)
For me b) is not an option, documentation is not written / updated on release day, but before it, when the features are released in the Mx and RCx versions. Since we start Mx of next release before release of previous one, we cannot managed such versioning easily. For now, to stay reasonable, I think we should do as we do in source code, and mention the version were a feature is introduced or changed when confusion should be avoided.
2. The skin used for documenting steps. This also includes the screenshots. Again we have several choices: a) Document only for the latest default skin. b) Document for all supported skins. Right now that would be Toucan + Colibri (not sure about Albatross, I don't think we've officially said it wasn't supported).
Note: If option b) is chosen, this would mean 2 screenshots for the same feature (one for each skin)
I doubt we could do b), reaching a correct a) is already an issue when the default skin is upgraded.
Denis
The vote content was mostly taken from the markmail link above.
If you have any other suggestions regarding this draft, please reply and state your opinion. We need as much feedback as possible in order to create a solid documentation standard.
participants (4)
-
Denis Gervalle -
Sorin Burjan -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol