[OPEN-ILS-DEV] 2.3 Documentation progress.

[Tim Spindler]

Here is some of the original discussion.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Tim Spindler <tjspindler at gmail.com> wrote:

> I also agree that it is better to port the older version.  If we get
> enough volunteers every to test things in time, I would say we could switch
> to a more though method but that does not appear to be happening.
> Justin's solution also may give some indicating to where the data came from
> and might be worth considering (assuming its easy to implement).
>
> Tim
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Justin Hopkins <
> justin at mobiusconsortium.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2012, at 9:14 AM, Soulliere, Robert wrote:
>>
>> > The "assume it is all good from the last version" approach works for me
>> and makes things easier for everyone involved.
>>
>> <sarcasm>
>> This is why I always follow the 1.6 documentation when I'm trying to
>> figure out how something works
>> </sarcasm>
>>
>> In all seriousness though, there are quite a few times that I find myself
>> consulting older documentation just because it's the only version that
>> included the section I'm looking for. It's sometimes (often) wrong but is
>> at least a good start. I do generally agree that it's ok to port forward
>> all documentation from the previous version but I also think it's going to
>> be time saving for members of DIG to mark potentially suspect sections for
>> review by developers and other DIG members.
>>
>> It's obviously a good thing to let community members at large find these
>> errors but the fact is that many people aren't as good as others when it
>> comes to dealing with problems as they arise. It may not be apparent to
>> them that the documentation is wrong and that it's not something else
>> that's causing their problem. It's not usual to people to look to the
>> documentation to solve their problems and if the documentation *is* the
>> problem it may be more than the initiate user can tolerate.
>>
>> I hate to propose a solution by creating another problem but here's a
>> blue sky idea: (I see that Alexey has said something similar)
>>
>> When new/beta documentation is posted each section that was ported from
>> the previous version has a "ported from version X.X" tag. Also, every
>> section (whether ported or not) has a "This section is under review. Is it
>> accurate? (radio buttons)" kind of system. This would allow us to remove
>> the ported tag when, say, 10 people "vote" and 90% of them say it's
>> accurate. We could keep the question/feedback section there and re-flag the
>> section as suspect if people vote it down.
>>
>> This would be something that I could see being implemented in the new
>> Drupal site - and I have some Drupal experience so I'd be willing to chip
>> in to help build it if others think it could be useful.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Justin
>
>
>
>
> --
> Tim Spindler
> tjspindler at gmail.com
>
> *P**   Go Green - **Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless
> it's really necessary.*
>
>
>
>


-- 
Tim Spindler
tjspindler at gmail.com

*P**   Go Green - **Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless it's
really necessary.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-dev/attachments/20120906/30d828ad/attachment.htm>