On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: > I find it sad that you are complaining that people have created > a resource *they* find useful, instead of one that *we think they > should find useful*.
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that I am not responsible for gcc/doc/*.texi as such. The main reason I'm listed as doc co-maintainer is so that I can help, as far as I can in terms of what I know, to get changes approved/applied and maintain install.texi and contrib.texi. There are, it seems, at least two different issues here: one is that our manuals seem not to be satisfactory, especially for new developers. And one is the documentation of our policies, procedures, timelines, etc. on the web pages. > In reality, you should be taking the docs people found useful, like on > the wiki, and moving them into our developer facing documentation, etc, As far as reviewing/applying/approving patches for wwwdocs is concerned, and implementing suggestions sent to the GCC lists, I'm committed to do that, and do so within one "online day" if possible in any way. However, I just don't have the bandwidth to dig through Wiki and port things over, and it's not exactly an efficient nor motivating modus operandi either. > instead of saying what seems to be "we shouldn't let people write > about this stuff on the wiki". Really, it depends on what "this stuff" is. Duplicating official information from the regular web pages simply does not seem very fruitful (and risks inconsistencies), and taking a wwwdocs patch and putting it into the Wiki as Michael did as opposed to providing feeback just seems counter productive. Gerald
