On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 10:15:56PM +0100, Javier Fern�ndez-Sanguino Pe�a wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:14:02PM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > > > > Sincerely, I do not understand at all the need to have an weekly > > html edition of the development cvs, but probably it's my failure. > > 1.- Some of the documents are _only_ published in htlm form.
So they are already published in the cvs > 2.- Users running stable cannot retrieve the latest version of the > documents installing new packages. Also, packages with documents might not > contain translations in some languages. True, but hopefully documents should generally be up-to-date in respect to unstable, not stable, that's quite confusing for naive users. > 3.- The website is the only place were all documentation is published, it's > not available in the FTP mirrors, even. > > And it's not necessarily the _development_ CVS, stable documents which are > updated from time to time (once a month? typo fixes? new translations?) are > also published using the same mechanism. > Mmm, probably we should consider the same sort of maintainance we have for point releases in stable (and so branching cvs whenever needed). Anyway, sure: at the current state we have not a better management, so having up-to-date docs is a requirement. > That's why I value the CVS to html transition so much. For some users, it's > the only contact they really have with some of the documentation > that Debian produces. > Ok, I was a bit biased by developers point of view. -- Francesco P. Lovergine
