Hi >>> On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 01:07:55AM +1000, James Turnbull wrote: >>>> 2. Restructure the wiki in place on Trac >>> Why not? I don't see the reason for switching the wiki engine. > >> James kind of left out his motivations for thinking about this in the >> first place, so I'll mention a few shortcomings that Trac currently >> has. I think James is a bit more cognizant of those shortcomings, >> though, because he's been spending a *lot* more time maintaining the >> wiki than I have (it's worth looking through a Timeline on the wiki >> and being amazed at how much time James has spent on it). > > I left out my motivations I guess because I didn't want to cloud the > issue with the fact I do find Trac very frustrating and somewhat > counter-intuitive. :) > > But yes - there are probably two separate issues here: > > 1. Project/Bug tracking. > 2. Documentation > > And personally I don't see why they can't be solved separately though > the integration maniac in me would prefer to see them solved together.
actually I'd also prefer to see them solved together, as project/bug tracking is also _always_ some kind of documentation. And in a project like puppet I think it is important to have an ongoing process of documentation which means that it is coupled with the ongoing process within the project itself. so what I didn't see yet is, what exactly is really frustrating? I agree that documentation is rather hard to find and often a bit a mess. However I agree with anarcat that this is mainly a problem of a wiki-culture (which is not always bad, but in this point it might be/is bad). So why not have some more wiki-nazis (i liked that word :P ) who would just refactor the wiki? I think many people just don't have the heart to move, split, combine, delete, change or whatever a page of someone else. however I mean it is a wiki, so: just do it! but I think it is also important that it should be first clear what kind of features are necessary (bug tracking, scm and so on) and which might be good. The much more important point in my opinion is: what would be seen as a good documentation? what would be the good style, what should a good documentation contain for puppet? nothing that really have been defined yet. as far as I remember. please correct me if I'm wrong So I think what would be nice would be to know first, what you james and luke (as well all the other) would accept as a good and reasonable documentation? Actually I like the auto-generated pages from code the most and I would prefer more of them! greets pete --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
