Yes, Peter, there is better documentation available for couchdb outside of our the projects official site. That's part of the problem we're addressing. The best place for couchdb documentation should be couchdb.apache.org, like it is for most other Apache projects.
B. On 13 June 2011 19:30, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > Also we should jab them with forks. > > > > On 13 June 2011 19:28, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
