The www.mozilla.org website is a navigational ball of mud, and we've never got a serious body of contributors working on it.
yes, and I'm afraid that can happen to DevMO too
Compared to the sites of many other projects, it sucks. We need to analyse why that is, and avoid making the same mistakes again. I assert CVS is part of the problem
CVS is a two-part problem:
1. Few people know that they can get a CVS account to edit m.o pages; those who do have already been around a long time. If you need help, you've got to find a qualified contributor, help them get a CVS account, and help them get through CVS. This means only a small percent of potential contributors get selected.
2. CVS has a rather steep learning curve *sign*
Doctor isn't always applicable. You cannot apply patches through Doctor. You cannot upload UTF8 doc through Doctor because it convert characters to ugly &#xxxxx's. You cannot modify NOMENU and NOWRAP through Doctor. You cannot upload images using Doctor. If someone with a CVS account want to do anything useful, sooner or later s/he has to learn CVS.
CVS is not the whole story. People need to learn to watch the webtree using Bonsai (and this isn't documented anywhere). mozilla.org is getting more complicated, and we need to document <!--include-->, templates, the various CSS classes, NOMENU and NOWRAP, etc. to help contributors build m.o to its full potential.
- we can argue that, fine, but even if everyone else disagrees with me, we need to learn what our mistakes were to avoid repeating them.
_______________________________________________ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
