On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > Am 07/12/2013 09:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: > >> On Jul 12, 2013, at 2:26 PM, "Marcus (OOo)"<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: >> >>> Am 07/12/2013 07:18 PM, schrieb janI: >>>> >>>> On 12 July 2013 18:49, Rob Weir<robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In the past we drafted release notes on the wiki, and then moved them >>>>> to a location on the website. I'd like to challenge our thinking on >>>>> this. >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't it be useful to keep the release notes as a "live" document >>>>> on the wiki, so we can easily update it with additional information on >>>>> known issues as they are found, especially after release? >>>> >>>> >>>> I see your point, however I disagree. >>>> >>>> I think the release doc. for 4.0 is part of the release and should be >>>> frozen in svn like all other release artifacts. This is done by having >>>> it >>>> as a static web page. >>> >>> >>> I support the doubts of Jan. >>> >>> The release notes should be seen as an artifact from a release as they >>> describe this. We can also go that far that we write down the SVN revision >>> number into the release notes. Then they are really tied strictly to this >>> release and nothing else. >>> >> >> And I did not mean to suggest anything else. The wiki page would be >> tied to a specific version of AOO, a different page for each version. >> But it would be updated to reflect the latest info, especially in the >> "known problems" section. > > > You suggested to put the release notes *and* latest information into the > Wiki, not only the last. >
Specifically, I'm proposing that these are the same thing. Remember, we already have a section in the release notes called "known issues". It sounds like you want that to be a snapshot of what was known at a fixed point in time, and then force the user to go to a different page to find timely information. Why make them do that? > >>>> We can then have a "latest information", which are live in wiki. >>> >>> >>> What about to put a link like this at the top of the release notes to >>> give it more visible attention: >>> >>> Text: "For the latest information about Apache OpenOffice 4.0 see >>> this related Wiki page." >>> Link: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AOO400_Lastest_Info >>> >> >> Look at it from the perspective of the user. They want one place to go >> for relevant info related to the release and problems they might >> encounter. They don't want to hunt around for "old" versus "new" info. >> Those distinctions are not relevant to a new user. > > > Look from the perspective of a forum user. They ask "Why does function X not > work on OS Y?" and they could be pointed to the Wiki page with the "Known > Issues" part, without the need to read all the oher stuff. > If the user was not able to find a solution themselves then we have already failed. The forums are not a solution for 50 million users. We still need to make an effort to provide relevant information to the user *at the time they download AOO*. A specific example. AOO 3.4.0 had a problem with migration extensions which caused a crash that lead to a huge number of reports to the forums and the mailing list and bugzilla. We're still cleaning up the mess. We get many reports on this on Facebook as well. Doesn't it make sense for the user to know about this information, and the easy workaround, when they download AOO initially? Why make them hunt for the info? Is it really relevant, from a user support perspective, whether the issue and workaround was known on the day we released versus an issue found a month later? Do you really think the user expects the former to be found in one place and the latter in another place? Really? > >> For example, imagine Windows 8.1 comes out and causes a problem with >> AOO4, but there is a good workaround that could save the user much >> frustration. But the release notes don't mention this. They just say >> Windows 8 is tested. This is not very helpful. > > > Great, just point them to the Wiki page. > Again, I'm trying to encourage self-service remedies for millions of users. Once they come here to ask a question they are already frustrated and we have already failed them. > >>> Then new and important / noteable changes can be documented in the (more >>> easily accessible) Wiki. >> >> >> My proposal was to handle this by keeping the release notes on a wiki >> page so such changes are seen by users with the least effort for them >> and us. > > > I still would like to see the (real) release notes in SVN control and > finally on a webpage. And the things that occur suddenly until the next > release can go into the Wiki. > > We are not that far away from each others opinion. ;-) > Perhaps, but I would like you to consider again this from the user's perspective and what would make it easiest for them to resolve issues without flooding our mailing lists for questions that we already know about. Regards, -Rob > > Marcus > > > >>>>> Remember, even if the issue is not caused by AOO code, a new upgrade >>>>> to a dependent operating system or other 3rd party application can >>>>> cause new issues to appear at any time. So keeping the release notes >>>>> updated is important. >>>> >>>> >>>> This issue is highly caused by AOO code, remember the release code is >>>> tested with a given set of third party libraries and given versions of >>>> the >>>> operating systems. >>>> >>>> Release notes reflect the environment tested for the 4.0 release, >>>> everything that comes later should either be kept in a separate document >>>> or >>>> postponed to a new release. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do we lose anything if we do this? For example, is there a concern >>>>> that the wiki can not handle the load? >>>> >>>> >>>> Wiki can handle the load (it must because a lot of people will search >>>> for >>>> info). >>>> >>>> Yes we loose trackability. Release notes is in svn (in my opinion). >>>> Remember in wiki anybody can change, so if person X test AOO on platform >>>> Y >>>> should he/she then just update the release documentation, I hope not. >>>> >>>> But again, your idea of a live document is good, I just see it as a >>>> second >>>> document (similar to what a lot of companies does). > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
