On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Martin Landa <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi, > > 2014-04-21 16:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler <[email protected]>: > >>> The duplication is certainly dangerous here. Trac seems like a proper > place > >>> (although this does not completely fit to the Trac wiki rules I > proposed > >>> because it does not fit anywhere). > >> > >> Any objections to move RFC from API manual to trac? Martin > > > > In general fine for me to move it out of the programmer's manual. > > But perhaps we use the GRASS Wiki since we already have several PSC > > related pages there? See > > > > http://grasswiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Category:PSC > > well, my preference would be to move all PSC pages from mediawiki > (user space) to trac wiki (project management, development). Martin > > This is the kind of pages I don't have clear opinion. One approach is development-related versus user-related but other approach is in-development versus state-of-art. The complication with the first is that user wants to script which is close to writing C code (e.g. ctypes) and hopefully in the future even close to GUI. This is my motivation for the "in-development versus state-of-art" rule. But RFC/PSC is unclear because it is state-of-are but user does not care even if he or she is writing C module. Hm, but he or she cares about RFC when the module is going to addons, so GRASS wiki then? Vaclav > -- > Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa >
_______________________________________________ grass-psc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
