Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:15:50 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: Ceri Davies <ceri@FreeBSD.org> Cc: simon@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RFC: internal/staff.sgml Message-ID: <20030929151550.3fe57a38.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20030929190404.GL915@submonkey.net> References: <20030929105114.5d39d879.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <20030929190404.GL915@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:04:04 +0100 Ceri Davies <ceri@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:51:14AM -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > -doc team, > > > > I'm in the process of removing the various 'teams' and 'project' > > listings from the articles and moving it all over to the > > internal/staff.sgml file. > > I'd recommend communicating with simon@ regarding this; he ran a similar > idea past me a couple of months ago, and may have some work in progress. Yes, we have already discussed the different ways of going about this. > > > My plan was to replace these areas with a link to that page after > > the work was completed. If there are any complaints, speak up and > > let it be known to me. > > As I mentioned to simon when he asked me about this, I'm not sure that the > internal/ directory is the right place for this, if it's to be the sole place > where the information is available (cf. the name of the directory - I'm not > convinced that we should refer users to the internal documentation). Well, the information can be downloaded by anyone who: A: CVSups the www collection, B: Does a CVS checkout, C: Looks at the internal/ directory in CVS web, D: Just plain visits the directory. > > Obviously, it would be very nice to have this information stored canonically > in one place; I'm just not convinced that /internal is the right one. I like it there in place of duplicating entities and information across two articles and then a web page when I was originally asked to create it. I don't have a problem with moving it all into an article, but then if we wanted to use single entities for say, re members, we would still have entity duplication. I'm currently at a loss on how to avoid this, but it is already there and that is why I just chose the staff.sgml file. > > [More observant readers will note that I'm not proposing anything better; > I'm just voicing a concern. Don't let that stop you ;-) ] Yes, I did notice that. :) While I did draft a patch up for this, I can revert all that work if a more novel idea came about. This is why I asked for comments before committing anything. :) -- Tom Rhodes
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030929151550.3fe57a38.trhodes>