Re: Documentation volunteer(s) needed

[josephblack]

In article , [e-mail] says...
> Folks,
>
> As most of you probably know (at least those of you who managed to get
> out of bed in time for my keynote ;-) we are supposed to release 0.9
> real soon now.  We do have one remaining issue: the documentation
> needs some major work. Not every bit of it is critical for the
> release, but we need to fix at least the User's Guide to reflect the
> recent configuration changes. Would anybody be interested in helping
> with that?

www.wine-wiki.org has been compiling tips from the wine mailing lists.
I had planned to use it to update the documentation, but keeping up
with the lists has kept me busy.

After some discussion, Jason (the owner) has confirmed he would like to
raise an offer of wine-wiki.org and its contents to the Wine project.

joseph black
admin

Documentation volunteer(s) needed

[Brian Vincent]

On 9/23/05, josephblack  wrote:
> www.wine-wiki.org has been compiling tips from the wine mailing lists.
> I had planned to use it to update the documentation, but keeping up
> with the lists has kept me busy.
>
> After some discussion, Jason (the owner) has confirmed he would like to
> raise an offer of wine-wiki.org and its contents to the Wine project.

First off, there's a lot of useful info in that wiki.  It obvious a
lot of time has gone into it.

However, I really don't see the point of having that wiki and I think
it has the potential to do more harm than good.  If there's one thing
Wine and the rest of the community has proven over and over, it's that
we can't maintain documentation.  I'd (almost) argue its best to have
no documentation than completely incorrect docs.

I realize that wiki came into existence before Wine's own, but now
that we have one I think some of that info needs to migrate to
wiki.winehq.org.  Maintaining two distinct wikis is overkill and
confusing for people looking for info.  Furthermore, the wine-wiki.org
has a huge section on applications that's best suited for the AppDB. 
The info there directly competes with the AppDB and we shouldn't
attempt to maintain two places with differing info.

I hope that doesn't sound like a case of Not-Invented-Here syndrome,
but we need to focus on making maintenance easy so that there's a
chance it might actually get done.  I certainly don't want to deter
anyone from working on Wine - any and all contributions are greatly
appreciated.

-Brian

Documentation volunteer(s) needed

[josephblack]

Brian Vincent wrote:
> On 9/23/05, josephblack  wrote:

<snip>
> > After some discussion, Jason has confirmed he would like to
> > raise an offer of wine-wiki.org and its contents to the Wine project.
> First off, there's a lot of useful info in that wiki.  It obvious a
> lot of time has gone into it.

thanks. Since starting, the wiki has collected tips for nearly a year. I 
have been trying to make time to send drafts to wine docs - such as some 
of the info about regression testing.
> However, I really don't see the point of having that wiki and I think
> it has the potential to do more harm than good.  If there's one thing
> Wine and the rest of the community has proven over and over, it's that
> we can't maintain documentation.  I'd (almost) argue its best to have
> no documentation than completely incorrect docs.
>
> I realize that wiki came into existence before Wine's own, but now
> that we have one I think some of that info needs to migrate to
> wiki.winehq.org.  <snip>

Well, There are two things being offered
1. the domain name
2. the contents

I dont mind, nor have much of a preference of whether it is moved over, 
or both are used by wine. Either way, at least tips from the mailing 
lists can be stored, saved and later moved to oficial documentation.

however while the developer wiki has shown it needs protecting, the 
unofficial 'end user/beginner' wiki has kept a low profile and carefully 
allowed open posting. People regularly take advantage of this to add 
notes or make corrections anon
> Furthermore, the wine-wiki.org
> has a huge section on applications that's best suited for the AppDB.
> The info there directly competes with the AppDB and we shouldn't
> attempt to maintain two places with differing info.

sure. I had expected all of that to move to the appdb. Applications 
havent really been my focus - all we wanted was to at least save info 
for later inclusion or encourage someone to become a maintainer.

Curiously one apdb entry has basic installation notes and then uses the 
wiki for a fairly lengthy & comprehensive troubleshooting suggestions - 
and recently someone anon added a portuguese(?) translation summary.

With those who add a new entry - we have had some success with them then 
becoming an apdb maintainer and as admin I put a chill on any misguided 
attempts at competition. The appdb is where that important info belongs 
but perhaps the appdb should be the subject of a seperate discussion.

Joseph Black