On 7 October 2011 12:31, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: > - I've flip-flopped over the years pro and con wikis for docs. > Currently I think they are great, measured by: > * instant publication > * existing infrastructure > * 0 landing overhead > - I think in-tree docs are essential for projects that ship product > to users: our individual reusable code components should have such > docs (both README and API, and *perhaps* a manual if appropriate). > - Launchpad itself doesn't ship product to users, its online, and > putting our (non-API) docs in tree doesn't help users at all - it > forces us to publish them separately, which is more complex and > unnecessary. > - Our documentation about using the API should be in-tree, so that > they can be tested and shown to work; they should be published with > the API (both the json web API and our programmatic API). > - Truely conceptual docs, like the architecture guide, coding > standards, tips and tricks - that should be in the wiki
+1 to all of that. lp still has some considerable landing overhead, compared to changes to the wiki being very quick. 'docs rot' is a constant where ever they are; the main answer to that is to edit boldly, either adding answers to new things when they come up, or deleting. m _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp