Re: Feedback from downstreams presentation from DX hackfest 2015

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

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

The current infrastructure really requires tarballs. We could reuse
continuous integration builds to spit out tarballs to feed to 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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]