Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I fail to see how that is in favor of Zope.... As dbaron said, anyone > > capable of really contributing to such documentation already knows how > > to use CVS.... > A XUL developer finds an issue with the XUL documentation. Another scenario: a person has a set of routine tasks and for years has found Composer's functionality sufficient. Finding the documentation basically correct, they find a couple of gaps and then realize they can re-write a number of sections more clearly, with a couple of cute tricks to add.
> Do they: > > a) (Assuming they have CVS write access) update their tree, make a fix, > do a diff, send it to the document owner for review, check it in _I_ wouldn't dare do that, even if I had somehow attained access (ok, so call me chicken; I'm real prone to collaboration) > b) Send a mail to the document owner, who will fix it when he gets > around to it This is what I've been doing time after time after time. (Of course, there's no paper trail to this, so there's certainly no reason to put my name on the list of contributors.) > c) Add a comment to the bottom of the relevant page, where everyone > can read it until the document is officially updated. I would introduce my slabs of alternative text, with appropriate markups to show the change, anticipating that someone would very likely pick gnits, trusting that the document owner would incorporate the changes and check the doc in as s/he saw fit. > Multiply this by several errata. And on and on ... addittion, correction, buff and polish. In the bad old days when 1Meg was more than too much RAM, I would circulate documents for markup, each round to a smaller group, each round with a more limited set of concerns. The result was a very large set of very large documents that was very good ... I did 100% of the editing, but only about 50% of the actual writing. > Gerv hfx_ben
