From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 8 09:32:29 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318F516A4CE; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:32:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.202.55]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC55143D6A; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:31:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from underway@comcast.net) Received: from localhost.localdomain (12-230-74-101.client.attbi.com[12.230.74.101]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004010817315301100l94hqe>; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:31:53 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) i08HYfYS012654; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:34:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from underway@comcast.net) Received: (from jojo@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i08HYaSI012653; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:34:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from underway@comcast.net) To: "Simon L. Nielsen" References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040106204233.04436d28@imap.sfu.ca> <20040107001258.GA742@arthur.nitro.dk> From: underway@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:34:36 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20040107001258.GA742@arthur.nitro.dk> (Simon L. Nielsen's message of "Wed, 7 Jan 2004 01:13:00 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code, berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going? X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:32:29 -0000 "Simon L. Nielsen" 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.