From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 5 00:08:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B86216A4CE; Sun, 5 Dec 2004 00:08:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240B343D5C; Sun, 5 Dec 2004 00:08:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id C073D148E7; Sat, 4 Dec 2004 18:08:53 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 18:08:53 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: Tom Rhodes In-Reply-To: <20041203155837.572c9ece@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Mark Linimon cc: FreeBSD-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Merging the FAQ -> handbook, build time options, proof ofconcept patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 00:08:54 -0000 On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Tom Rhodes wrote: > So, lemmie get this straight. > > Quick and question and answers in the faq, more thorough explinations > moved into the handbook? Well, perhaps, "Q/A about the project itself in the FAQ; other Qs point to As in some other document. No overlap of Answer text with any other document". If it's a "what" or a "why" question, it stays in the FAQ; if it's a "how", it moves, either to the Handbook, or its own how-to. > Here is my problem: Everyone complains about the FAQ, and what > is wrong with it. Right now, like this weekend (today if possible), > I want to put that issue to bed. I agree with the former, but don't agree with the latter -- I'd really rather wait a few days so I can try to hack on the prototype some more and I'm desperately short of cycles right now. As you can tell from what I've posted to date in this thread, I have an idea of what I want the general principles to be, but until I can see what things would look like with some prototypes it's just too hard to tell. And no, I don't want to leave it hanging and never-to-be-resolved, either, I'm just too trashed right at this moment to put the cycles in. It's a big change, I'd rather we do it once and do it right, forever, and if it means we wait 3-4 days, well, I think it's worth it. > we need to choose what to do: > > Move most of the FAQ and keep the FAQ simple, That's what I would like to do. > So, if you and others are interested in keeping the FAQ alive but > short, then let's move forward. Tell me the "big sections" you want > to see moved and we'll move them. [ ... ] I don't think you and I are > really getting each others point. It's like I follow you, but at the > same time I'm lost on what exactly it is you want to do. That's because I'm not 100% sure yet -- I have the general idea but not all the specifics articulated well, even to myself (i keep trying in these posts). I need more cycles to run 2-3 more iterations of moving things around to see what it would look like and I'm just not going to have those cycles in the next 48 hours. mcl