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 > > goal. > > 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 developer.gnome.org. > > The current infrastructure really requires tarballs. We could reuse > continuous integration builds to spit out tarballs to feed to > developer.gnome.org. 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. Philip
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
