I like this idea as well. It gets what we have documented out there in an official capacity and we can more easily get input from the community on documentation and possibly even code fixes.
It would be great to get some sense of how many folks would be willing to pitch in and help translate one or more parts of the current wiki documentation to the new system. On Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:33:04 AM UTC-5, QuackFuzed wrote: > > Sounds like a fair plan to me. I can't see any negatives there. I mean, > the core, already-documented functionality/feature set hasn't changed > (unless upgrading from 2.x). I say go for it. :-) > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Dan Wilson wrote: > >> You might have hit on a good idea Roy, maybe we release the 3.2 with the >> updated core and the rest of the documented features, and leave the >> undocumented features unannounced. >> >> That way, we could get the code out there. I, along with others, have >> been using the 3.2 code in production for quite a while and it's been very >> solid. >> >> Would anyone else like to comment on the pros/cons of releasing the code >> as is, with undocumented features that will be documented at a later time? >> Possibly in a new release? >> >> >> DW >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Roy Martin wrote: >> >>> To follow-up on this, perhaps it would be better to release the updated >>> code base and dub it a 4.0 as you suggested and then simply stub out all >>> the new features and sections for documentation that are needed. My take is >>> that if we just outline these at a high-level and then as the community for >>> support it's more likely to get completed. Otherwise, if you were to visit >>> the website now it appears that it's a stalled project with that last >>> revision and blog post almost a year old. For a model on how to do this, I >>> have really liked the approach that http://refinerycms.com/ has taken. >>> They pull in the documentation directly from github, which allows for two >>> benefits - easy to accept new documentation from the community and builds >>> the documentation into the application (ex: >>> http://refinerycms.com/guides/contributing-to-refinery and >>> https://github.com/resolve/refinerycms/blob/2-0-stable/doc/guides/8%20-%20Contributing/2%20-%20Writing%20a%20guide%20for%20this%20website.textile >>> ). >>> Perhaps we can also use this launch as an opportunity to shift the core >>> code base to github and then use this model for documentation? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Roy >>> >> -- Model-Glue Sites: Home Page: http://www.model-glue.com Documentation: http://docs.model-glue.com Bug Tracker: http://bugs.model-glue.com Blog: http://www.model-glue.com/blog You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "model-glue" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/model-glue?hl=en
