Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:52:09 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri <almarrie@gmail.com> Cc: cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org, doc-committers@FreeBSD.org, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/5-roadmap article.sgml Message-ID: <46EF0519.40205@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <499c70c0709171539o284382abw34e856f94cd6e6d0@mail.gmail.com> References: <200709172102.l8HL2hEx089576@repoman.freebsd.org> <46EEEC96.1010007@FreeBSD.org> <499c70c0709171412w5c812f47h8145124facbf1ade@mail.gmail.com> <20070917222637.GB3621@kobe.laptop> <499c70c0709171539o284382abw34e856f94cd6e6d0@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri wrote: > On 9/18/07, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On 2007-09-18 00:12, Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri <almarrie@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 9/18/07, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>> Giorgos Keramidas escribi??: >>>>> keramida 2007-09-17 21:02:43 UTC >>>>> >>>>> FreeBSD doc repository >>>>> >>>>> Modified files: >>>>> en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/5-roadmap article.sgml >>>>> Log: >>>>> Avoid using "It was", but use a more explicit reference to the >>>>> version-guide article in the abstract of 5-roadmap. This way >>>>> the text is a bit less confusing. >>>> Shouldn't this be nuked? I remember it came to the topic some time ago, >>>> but we won't have >>>> any new releases from 5.X any more and it has only a historical >>>> significance. >>> When you go on and keep reading, and follow the links you feel the 5.x >>> task isn't completed yet, and I feel it's misleading, I would suggest >>> you make docs for FreeBSD 7.x Road Map or even 8.x >> That's odd. After reading this in the current abstract: >> >> <para> This document is now mostly of historical value. It >> presented a roadmap for the development of &os;'s &t.releng.5; >> branch. It was originally written in February 2003 (between >> the 5.0 and 5.1 releases), and was intended to provide a plan >> for making the &t.releng.5; branch <quote>stable</quote>, both >> in terms of code quality and finalization of various >> APIs/ABIs. For a different perspective, the article >> <ulink url="&url.articles.version-guide;"> >> <quote>Choosing the &os; Version That Is Right For You</quote> >> </ulink> >> may be of interest. The version-guide article was written in August >> 2005 (two and a half years later), and it contains a section >> discussing how these plans and events actually unfolded, as well as >> some lessons learned.</para> >> >> it was obvious to me that the article is *not* describing the current >> state of affairs. Any suggestions about improving the text to make it >> less confusing for people who just happen to stumble upon it now, are >> very welcome :) > > I think if you change the title itself it will be good idea. > > The Road Map for 5-STABLE to The Road Map for 5-STABLE ( historical value ) > AS the author of this blasted document, I'll ask that 1) you stop arguing about nit-picky points about it, 2) don't change the title, and 3) stop attaching so much significance to it. Thanks =-) Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46EF0519.40205>