Re: User Documentation Requirements

["Elijah Newren" <newren gmail com>]

On 10/19/06, Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org> wrote:
> In the 2.15 release cycle, we moved the new module proposal
> period to the beginning of the release cycle
<snip>
> This was an incredibly good idea, and whoever thought of it
> should get a big pat on the back.

IIRC, it was Jeff's idea.  And I agree, it was a great idea.

<snipped user-documentation proposal>

> I am half-tempted to attempt to standardize the name of
> this [bugzilla documentation] component, but I'd want to
> talk to bugmasters first to see how easily we could transition.

It looks like I filed this issue in response to previous comments on
the matter as bug 338663.  I agree with Olav's comments there; it
shouldn't be hard to make this transition...other than one notable
exception: I don't know how to resolve
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=339173.  That kind of breaks
the almost-standard[1] 'docs' naming convention.  The are several
proposed possible solutions, but it doesn't seem very clear to me
which one should be used (if any).

> Objections?

None here.  One question though...if this user-documentation proposal
is agreed upon, is this something that we want to start
applying/enforcing in 2.18 or 2.20?  It seems we often have
suggestions in one cycle and then they start getting applied/enforced
in the next cycle (perhaps after some additional discussion early in
the next cycle), but it's still relatively early in 2.18.

Cheers,
Elijah


[1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=338663#c1