Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:34:36 -0800 From: underway@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going? Message-ID: <aq3caq9wer.caq@mail.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <20040107001258.GA742@arthur.nitro.dk> (Simon L. Nielsen's message of "Wed, 7 Jan 2004 01:13:00 %2B0100") References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401061417540.17348-100000@pancho> <6.0.1.1.1.20040106204233.04436d28@imap.sfu.ca> <20040107001258.GA742@arthur.nitro.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> writes: > Indeed, but it's not as easy as it sounds (well, I don't know if it > sounds easy...). I know that the committer's job did NOT sound easy when I considered it a couple of years ago. And I'm just referring to the mechanics of it and not all the really more important and time-consuming tasks of dealing with PR authors. I don't remember if any of it seemed unnecessary, but I hope the processes are reviewed occasionally. In the case of the FDP, I think there's an extra problem: the source language of the documentation is too complex for a project without paid grunt workers. A significant contributor has the choice of learning a huge language (including the "entities" and informal standards) or being "lazy" and allowing others to fix up his edits. I'm sure that many people want to be lazy but don't want to be seen to be lazy, so just stay away from it all. I think it would be better to keep the documentation in a very bare and simplified version of docbook or maybe even a wiki-like language. (I prefer using the plain-text version, anyway, as it is easier to search.) Having "pretty" versions of the docs is not worth the cost of their maintenance, IMO, especially when it has the side effect of significantly discouraging participation in the FDP.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aq3caq9wer.caq>