Re: Getting the info

[Joachim Noreiko <jnoreiko yahoo com>]

--- Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org> wrote:
> > From who?
> > IRC channels are tumbleweed.
> > I could join yet another mailing list, but in this
> > particular case, I'm pretty sure it's the one for
> > gnome control center that's as silent as the
> grave.
> 
> Well, that's part of the reason I haven't been able
> to get a process like this implemented.  I don't
> know.
> I'm open to suggestions on how to get developers
> more
> actively involved with the documentation.

The recent suggestion on desktop-devel of only
accepting patches once there's corresponding docs was
interesting... but as was pointed out, would have a
few undesirable side-effects. We already have a
problem with patches waiting for attention, and we
shouldn't make it worse.

What about requiring the maintainer or the patch
submitter to email this list with information or file
a docs bug once their patch is in?
I'm not sure how we go about enforcing that. It's all
very well to talk about the release team rejecting
apps that don't conform to standards, whether it be
for docs or usability, but they can hardly reject
Nautilus or a Preference tool, can they?

It seems to me a change in culture is required: coders
must realize that they do not work in a vacuum.
An undocumented feature, or a feature with poor
usability, is often little better than no feature at
all, and it could be argued it's potentially worse, as
it gives the user a negative impression of gnome as a
whole.

(Along similar lines, I suggested to the usability
list not long ago that coders should ask for a
designer to create glade files rather than make their
own (frequently) hamfisted attempts, but I've not had
much response to that idea.)


		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com