[OPEN-ILS-DEV] 2.3 Documentation progress.

[Soulliere, Robert]

Hi Dan,

The "assume it is all good from the last version" approach works for me and makes things easier for everyone involved.

The one thing I was concerned about was drastic changes to processes from one major release to the next. I understand that beta testers should sniff those out and report issues, but in some cases there seem to be long  delays before some content areas are tested. This could cause frustration for newer users who rely on precise instructions. Perhaps the "release notes' would cover us on that and it is better to have faulty docs than no docs at all for that version?

If others are comfortable with the automatically pulling the docs from the last release, we can set it up to do that.

Thanks,
Robert




Robert Soulliere, BA (Hons), MLIS
Systems Librarian
Mohawk College Library
robert.soulliere at mohawkcollege.ca
Telephone: 905 575 1212 x3936
Fax: 905 575 2011
________________________________________
From: open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Dan Scott [dan at coffeecode.net]
Sent: August 9, 2012 9:50 AM
To: Evergreen Development Discussion List
Cc: open-ils-documentation at list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] 2.3 Documentation progress.

Hi Robert:

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Soulliere, Robert
<robert.soulliere at mohawkcollege.ca> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I set up Documentation processing for Evergreen  2.3. This is in “Alpha mode” and available for review.
>
> It is available in the “Under Development” section of our documentation launch page:
>
> http://docs.evergreen-ils.org/
>
>
> I also added an outline page for folks working on content to update progress on chapters and sections:
>
> http://www.open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=evergreen-docs_2.3:outline
>
> You might notice a number of “Can this be pulled from 2.2 content?” notes in red.
>
> The content for those chapters are already in 2.2 and are easy to pull into 2.3. All I need is for content authors or developers who are familiar with the content or development of the features in these chapter to indicate “yes” using the outline or the DIG list or launchpad.  Then, I can pull it in.

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a sustainable model. I think we
have to assume that all of the 2.2 content should be pulled into 2.3,
and then deal with the exceptions as they arise. Beta-testers can open
bugs against the documentation if they find discrepancies between what
is documented and what they see in the beta release, but they can't do
that if there's no content to look at.

Perhaps as part of the Launchpad "pullrequest" and the review process,
we could start flagging areas of the documentation that need to be
changed as new features are added, or as old features are deprecated?

This E-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended
only for the individual or entity named in the message.  If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible
to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is prohibited.  If this communication was received in error, please
notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy
the original message.