On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for commit requirement in addition to being a release requirement. > At the very least, we get the docs fixed during the release process, > but it ought to be done with the commit itself. In practice, we'll > forget sometimes, and then be reminded by others on the team. >
Right. I'm saying "reminded by others" should be "commit vetoed". > B. > > On 13 June 2011 19:17, Robert Dionne <[email protected]> wrote: >> ++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. >>>>> >>>> >> >> >
