Gary Schnabl wrote:
ghrt wrote:
Gary Schnabl wrote:
ghrt wrote:
I think it will be a good idea to have different folders for
different OOo versions. A guide with some chapters on 2.2 and others
on 2.3.0-dev, with diffs between the software versions, it will be
at least unusable.
Version 2.3, being readily available and being actively pushed for
volunteers to test it, means that it is nearly ready for stable
distribution. Drafting documents for 2.3 should be the norm instead
of writing/editing the documents for a version that will soon be
technically obsolete.
The timeline I found indicates that 2.3 is due for release in
September.
Yes, i agree, but i said another thing: to have different folders for
different software versions, ie 2.2, 2.3 and so on. As a translator,
i'm always "a little late" and I might get half a book with 2.2 and
the other half with 2.3. Of course, i took all the chapters from the
beginning with the same version, but mixing them at oooauthors makes
impossible to get latest version on 2.2 since only 2.3 is on site.
That's the idea. Now I think we have diff folders only for major
changes, like 1.x and 2.x.
I agree with ghrt that we need to differentiate things we are
writing/editing for soon-to-be-released versions of OOo from
things written for current (or recently past) versions of OOo.
I agree with Gary that writing/editing for the next version of
OOo is a good idea. However, when we find mistakes (including
typos) in current documents, we should correct them and make
those docs as correct as possible.
A major problem at OOo and OOoAuthors is that the current documentation
is usually quite a bit behind the then-current implementation. What is
passed off as being 2.2 or whatnot is not really as current as it seems.
Any changes in the GUI or new functions are not always covered, and some
elements apparently have never been covered in the docs or in the online
help--especially the online help.
That is obviously due to a shortage of writers, mostly... Also,
occasionally some of the procedural steps leave holes because they tend
to be incomplete or don't cover all the GUI components or functions.
All of that is unfortunately quite true. We need lots more people
constantly checking the current docs against the new versions of
the software, to spot new/changed items. Even if those people
don't write about the new/changed stuff, having it flagged would
be a great help to me and the others who do the writing.
Also having various pigeon holes for parking docs for the various
incremental or major versions would necessarily be rather incomplete and
would accomplish little worthwhile, to my way of thinking.
I disagree. Separate the new/revised docs from the currently
published ones until the new version of OOo is released, and then
replace the current docs with the new ones -- and keep the
current docs somewhere. (BTW, I use the "old files" folder for
each book for storing drafts during development, and then
periodically delete those copies -- when I find time to do it.
Sounds like a more organised variation on that technique might be
useful.)
I've been concerned for some time that my habit of overwriting
existing docs with new ones is causing problems (or at least
inconvenience) for the translators. Although I've discussed this
a bit with some of the translators, we haven't done anything to
improve the situation for them.
With several people making minor and major corrections to the
existing chapters, "change tracking" can become a real mess if
all changes after initial publication are kept, so comparing old
and new chapters seems to me to be a more workable way of
indicating differences. Thus keeping folders for existing docs vs
new/revised docs seems to me to be a step in the right direction.
I would like to hear from more translators (and anyone else) on
this topic.
--Jean
