Use a git repository. Make tagged releases. This enables far easier distributed editing, translating, mirroring etc. And you can still do whatever release engineering you want.
A wiki is a horrible solution for something like this. On March 15, 2015 8:24:49 AM CDT, Rob Seastrom <[email protected]> wrote: > >William Norton <[email protected]> writes: > >> Agreed - Hence the âCurrentâ in the title. Maybe the date of the >> document will be the key to let people know that they have the most >> current version. > >The date of a single document is of scant use in determining its >currency unless there is some sort of requirement for periodic >recertification and gratuitous reissue of BCOPs (for instance, >anything with a date stamp more than 18 months in the past is >by definition invalid). That seems like busy work to periodically >affirm that a good idea is still a good idea, and I don't volunteer >for this job. :) > >I'm on board for wholesale replacement of the document (with revision >history preserved) rather than the RFC series approach. > >The wiki/living document approach others have suggested seems like a >poor one to me, for the same reason that I dislike the current trend >of "there's no release tarball, major release, point release, or >regression testing - just git clone the repository" in free software >development. Releng is hard and thankless but adds enormous value and >serves as a forcing function for some level of review, cursory though >it may be. > >-r > > >!DSPAM:55058872288661838712557! -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
