justin@shiningsilence.com wrote:
>>Which implies a 'frozen' Release set for each and every release, though.
>>Lots of stuff in the attic.
>>
>>I seriously doubt they would see much use.
>
>
> You're right - historical versions of the docs won't help anyone. I
> suppose what's I'm really interested in is having a formal cleanup period.
>
> When the wiki idea was first brought up, it was considered good, but not a
> good replacement for the existing docs in CVS. I'd like the process to be
> more formalized - not to make it difficult, but to make it more reliable,
> whatever that may mean.
>
Resources for coding, documenting, editing/reviewing are scarce and have
at least moderate overlap.
Like it or not, I think the resource constraints, coupled with the 'rate
of advance' will mean the wiki (or something like it)
will have to replace the docs in cvs (and/or be the 'master' not the
'slave').
Good examples of 'dynamic' docs include the Exim 4.x Spec - where
the hardbound book can never stay current, but the online one is very good.
Bad examples might include Plone - where the user commentary is
sometimes so 'immediate' and inline-embedded (and sometimes irrelevant)
that it is not possible to follow the thread of the original doc.
FreeBSD's system overall, BTW, is a good one. One can find more info,
and more concise info, there in one place about Linux, for example, than
from most Linux sites - and it is a *BSD* site.
Handbook, man pages, how-to's, etc.
Bill