Ned Slider wrote: > Ralph Angenendt wrote: >> Question: Do we need more than we have now (meaning: Do we need trac and >> subversion or is this mailing list and the wiki enough for now)? We >> cannot change the documentation we get from upstream and I don't >> remember if we have any other documentation than is on the wiki at the >> moment ... > > I don't personally see a need for anything else atm Ralph. Formalizing a > SIG could be as easy as nominating a dev team rep (you??), SIG lead and > membership, and putting it on the Wiki. > > I don't really understand why we mirror the RH documentation (manuals) > other than to be polite and conserve upstream's bandwidth? Obviously the > documentation retains RH's branding so presumably can be freely > redistributed but not changed so I'm wondering where's the added value? > Is it purely a courtesy or are there other reasons not to point directly > to upstream's manuals.
Courtesy and to have something within the centos space to point to. Plus: Finding the manuals on upstream *all in one place* (like clustermanagement, virtualization and so on) isn't that easy. > One more thing - I'm wondering about the continued use of the "prominent > North American Enterprise Linux vendor" phrase that appears on the > website. Presumably this dates back to a time when Red Hat was less > receptive to CentOS but that has changed now? Is this something that > could/should be dropped now relations are friendlier? Good question. Cheers, Ralph
pgp9USDqMU2QB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS-docs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
