11 Jun
2010
11 Jun
'10
11:39 a.m.
On Jun 11, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:10, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Sure but you're already talking about the next step which requires tooling and is more
complex to set up. I'd prefer to see step 1 done quickly and then someone could work
to do step2 as you mention. I've had this idea about "validate version"
since 2006 but it's still not there since someone needs the time to implement it ;)
-Vincent
On Jun 10, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
What would be great would be some kind of patch annotation a xwiki.org
editor would just need to apply it by clicking on a button.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:55, Sorin Burjan
<sorin.burjan(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
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 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. - 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)
We could also have the notion of "validated version", anyone can
modify the document but a xwiki.org editor can validate a version. By
default you view the last validated version but you can also see the
last version if some modification has been made. > 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:ou7hgdiiwgay…
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.