++1++ On Jun 13, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> It's not the wiki per se that bothers me, it's that it's the primary, >> often only, source of documentation. >> >> I propose that future releases of CouchDB include at least a full >> description of all public API's. Improvements above that base level >> would be a manual and/or simple tutorials. >> >> This documentation would be maintained in the same source tree as the >> code and it would be a release requirement for this documentation to >> be updated to include all new features. >> > > You had me until you said "release requirement". I would upgrade that > to "commit requirement" if we're seriously about having such > documentation. If we don't force people to make sure docs reflect > changes at commit time then its probably going to be a lost cause. > >> This documentation is then the primary source, the wiki can serve as a >> supplement. >> >> b. >> >> On 13 June 2011 18:16, Peter Nolan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Any documentation is good. >>> >>> What is this 'spam'? Haven't personally encountered anything on the wiki >>> that would be 'considered' spam (perhaps not stumbled upon that portion?) >>> >>> But it's inevitable that the wiki will be attacked by unscrupulous people >>> and as such, the wiki should prepare for this. The wiki is going to need >>> gatekeepers/admins to maintain it. >>> >>> It would be nice, that any edits be archived so users can see previous >>> states of the page if they so choose so. >>> >>> >>> If a noted jerk keeps editing the wiki, we should have a system that only >>> applies his edits to his account. The common user would not see his edits, >>> only he would, which would hopefully convince him that his edit has gone >>> through. >>> >>> +1 top hats. >>> >>
