I second everything Robert said at this point.
Yamil
On Aug 31, 2011, at 12:00 PM, [email protected]
wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:35:31 -0400
From: "Soulliere, Robert" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION] DIG Meeting Follow-up
To: Documentation discussion for Evergreen software
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<cea75392dddf7b479a1d4d5bb73ff1d212c31f6...@mcfe-140-ex001.mc.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
My comments on these questions:
1) What are our current priorities as far as documentation goes?
#1: Fill in the content gaps for 2.0 as indicated by outline/
assignments:
http://open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=evergreen-docs_2.0:outline
- a lot of pretty big gaps still exist especially in regards to new
OPAC features and some common staff tasks. Is there some existing
documentation for in the wild people could share or review for
inclusion?
#2: More reviewing and reviewers for existing documentation for 2.0
to find flaws, verify accuracy and improve procedures.
#3: Begin developing documentation for 2.1 (and discover what can be
pulled from 2.0).
2) Is there anything DIG itself needs (as opposed the documentation)
that might deserve some priority?
- 2.1 test server to allow more folks a test platform for new 2.1
features -- Yamil brought this up at the DIG meeting.
Regards,
Robert
Robert Soulliere, BA (Hons), MLIS
Systems Librarian
Mohawk College Library
[email protected]
Telephone: 905 575 1212 x3936
Fax: 905 575 2011
_______________________________________________
OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
