On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 16:31 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:37:32PM +0000, Philip Withnall wrote:What do you mean by reaching out to the advisory board? Reaching out for further feedback from them as downstreams, or reaching out for resources to fix such issues? I think the former would be interesting. I’m not sure the latter is worth their time, since it’s a very loosely defined goal.I meant for resources. Though we should have a team to continuously reach out, find out issues and act on them. If we don't act/respond (which could be about going back and saying we cannot change it), then no point in asking.
Agreed, there is no point in asking if we can’t follow up. Other than that, I don’t really have an opinion about asking the advisory board.
4. Instant gratification: documentation changes should be visible instantly, rather than waiting 6 months for a GNOME release before the docs hit developer.gnome.org.The current infrastructure really requires tarballs. We could reuse continuous integration builds to spit out tarballs to feed to developer.gnome.org. It would not be instant, but you'd cut it down to 15 minutes maybe? It would be a huge improvement.
I think 15 minutes is still long enough for someone writing docs to lose interest and start looking at pictures of cats instead. I think we should aim to get it down to the time taken to rebuild the docs, so around 1 minute. If that requires a big change in the current infrastructure, then I guess we need to make a big change in the current infrastructure. Philip
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part