Here is some of the original discussion. On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Tim Spindler <[email protected]> wrote:
> I also agree that it is better to port the older version. If we get > enough volunteers every to test things in time, I would say we could switch > to a more though method but that does not appear to be happening. > Justin's solution also may give some indicating to where the data came from > and might be worth considering (assuming its easy to implement). > > Tim > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Justin Hopkins < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 9, 2012, at 9:14 AM, Soulliere, Robert wrote: >> >> > The "assume it is all good from the last version" approach works for me >> and makes things easier for everyone involved. >> >> <sarcasm> >> This is why I always follow the 1.6 documentation when I'm trying to >> figure out how something works >> </sarcasm> >> >> In all seriousness though, there are quite a few times that I find myself >> consulting older documentation just because it's the only version that >> included the section I'm looking for. It's sometimes (often) wrong but is >> at least a good start. I do generally agree that it's ok to port forward >> all documentation from the previous version but I also think it's going to >> be time saving for members of DIG to mark potentially suspect sections for >> review by developers and other DIG members. >> >> It's obviously a good thing to let community members at large find these >> errors but the fact is that many people aren't as good as others when it >> comes to dealing with problems as they arise. It may not be apparent to >> them that the documentation is wrong and that it's not something else >> that's causing their problem. It's not usual to people to look to the >> documentation to solve their problems and if the documentation *is* the >> problem it may be more than the initiate user can tolerate. >> >> I hate to propose a solution by creating another problem but here's a >> blue sky idea: (I see that Alexey has said something similar) >> >> When new/beta documentation is posted each section that was ported from >> the previous version has a "ported from version X.X" tag. Also, every >> section (whether ported or not) has a "This section is under review. Is it >> accurate? (radio buttons)" kind of system. This would allow us to remove >> the ported tag when, say, 10 people "vote" and 90% of them say it's >> accurate. We could keep the question/feedback section there and re-flag the >> section as suspect if people vote it down. >> >> This would be something that I could see being implemented in the new >> Drupal site - and I have some Drupal experience so I'd be willing to chip >> in to help build it if others think it could be useful. >> >> Cheers, >> Justin > > > > > -- > Tim Spindler > [email protected] > > *P** Go Green - **Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless > it's really necessary.* > > > > -- Tim Spindler [email protected] *P** Go Green - **Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless it's really necessary.*
_______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
