> More directly useful to me would be if people would pull information > off trac and into RoughDocs and confirm the code works for 1.0. The > code review takes most of the effort in these conversions. The > conversion and copy editing process are fairly simple otherwise.
Yes! This is an easy way to get started, and it helps a lot. If you search around the trac wiki you'll find lots of interesting documents that just need to be ported to rough-docs and tested. If you can just port it over and not test it, leave a note that it's not tested against 1.0. The wiki way will takeover and somebody may test it for you. ;) If you'd rather not deal with the coversion, but would like to test some docs, you can do that. If something doesn't exist in the docs, write it up! If somebody posts something insiteful on the list, ask them to paste it into Rough Docs, where we can improve on it, validate it, and get it included in the official docs. Lots of little steps get us where we need to go. And of course there's always room for those who are ready to put some serious effort into organzing all of that data into a coherent and easily navigable set of pages. ;) -- Mark Ramm www.compoundthinking.com/blog --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" 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/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
